Matthew,

Thanks for calling out that sentence. Assuming "such mechanisms" means "independent mechanisms enabling to review and, when appropriate, redress, decisions from the ICANN Board of Directors," which the co-Chairs say the CCWG is considering addressing in WS1, the full sense of the sentence (editing slightly for clarity) is:

Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, Board decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions will be within the remit of independent mechanisms for the review and redress of decisions of the ICANN Board of Directors, which the CCWG-Accountability may address in Work Stream 1.

This is an interesting, and potentially troubling, statement. It appears to contradict the Charters of both the CWG and the CCWG, The CWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." The CCWG Charter states "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.

This creates an awkward situation on several levels:

Can this action be reconciled with the Charters? In other words, does "implementation and operational accountability" for the "administration of the IANA functions" include Board "decisions directly related to IANA functions"?

If this is properly within the CWG's scope, can the CCWG change both group's scope without amending the Charters?

Why does this say that the CCWG will proceed this way unless the CWG objects, rather than seeking agreement from the CWG?

IF the CWG agrees (or more accurately, fails to object), then the CCWG's WS1 will include mechanisms for review and redress of Board decisions directly related to IANA functions. Does this mean that the CWG is ceding its ability to create such mechanisms as part of its proposal, and that any such accountability must await the CCWG's work? Or does this mean that the CWG will also create such mechanisms, which could be overlapping and contradictory of the CCWG's mechanisms? Or should the CWG object?

How can this be reconciled with the Independent Appeals Panel proposed by the CWG in its Draft Proposal? Should this be limited to appeals of IANA action/inaction and not address Board decisisons relating to IANA action/inaction? Is this a sensible dividing line?

What is the proper way for the CWG and CCWG to address this? Collaborate? Draw clearer lines of demarcation? Shift responsibilities away from the model contemplated in the Charter?

Very interesting.

Greg Shatan

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:13 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:

Thank Grace

I am not sure what the intent of this sentence is:

Unless the CWG-Stewardship specifies otherwise, decisions that are directly related to IANA Functions shall be within the remit of such mechanisms.

Could we not delete the above and add the following on from the prior sentence as follows (if it captures the intent of the above):

“The CCWG-Accountability is therefore considering addressing this need in its Work Stream 1 (WS1) and will keep the CWG stewardship apprised of any potential IANA-related implications.”

Matthew

On 1/7/2015 9:40 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
Hi all,

Attached is the High Level Statement discussed on the call. The chairs plan to submit at 15:00 UTC. Please provide your comments.

Best,

Grace

From: Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 3:24 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG ACCT call details 06 Jan 12:00 UTC

Dear all,

The notes and Adobe Connect recordings and transcript (soon) for the CCWG ACCT Call on 06 January are available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985

·       Action Item: Co-Chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting

·       Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document.  Proposed edits are welcome.  Goal to develop a common view on

scoping.  Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting.  Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.

·       Action Item: The statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.

The next call is on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 at 06:00 UTC.

Best,

Brenda

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community