Dear Mathieu, Thanks for this. Concerning “Future FY ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum itemization of all IANA operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the project level and below as needed.”, I’d like to remind the group that the ccNSO Strategy and Operating Plan working group has requested this kind of information countlessly over the past eight years. When responding to the request, ICANN staff underlined the difficulties relating to such cost itemisation because of various issues. I am not saying we should lose faith in having them one day, but the community may get answers very similar to what we already heard. As ccNSO SOP chair, I will make sure this request is well highlighted in the coming ccNSO SOP comment on the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget. Best, Giovanni On 15 Apr 2015, at 10:34, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am pasting below the notes of CWG Meeting #40 which addressed the topics of expectations towards our group. This is of course very relevant to our work, in terms of drafting our recommendations as well as the consideration of our workplan and timeline. Best, Mathieu -------- Message transféré -------- Sujet : [CWG-Stewardship] Notes Meeting #40 at 14:00 UTC Date : Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:51:43 +0000 De : Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Pour : cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> 4. Instructions for CCWG? • ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) Response: The CWG supports the idea of budget veto tool, and the CWG expects the CCWG to deliver on this ability for the community to veto the budget. Furthermore, with regards to the details to be provided in relation to the IANA budget, the CWG is expected to recommend as part of its transition plan that: 1. The IANA Function’s comprehensive costs should be transparent for any future state of the IANA Function. 2. Future FY ICANN Operating Plans & Budgets, and if possible even the FY16 ICANN Operating Plan & Budget, include at a minimum itemization of all IANA operations costs in the FY ICANN Operating Plan & Budget to the project level and below as needed. • Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) – Response: As part of the structure that the CWG is currently considering (Internal accountability hybrid model: legal separation variant), the CWG will be relying on the community empowerment and accountability mechanisms that the CCWG is considering such as the ability to review of ICANN Board decisions on the IANA periodic review performance (PRF); approve or reject board decisions on PRF as well as the related creation of a stakeholder community / member group to trigger these kinds of abilities. As such the CWG wants to emphasize again the interlinkage and interdependence between the two groups and the need to continue close co-operation and regular information sharing. • Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) Response: The CWG is expected to recommend that a periodic review of the IANA functions is scheduled to take place no later than every 5 years and would operate in a manner analogous to an AOC review. As the CWG understands that the CCWG is working on incorporating other periodic reviews as mandated by the AoC, the CWG would like to know whether an IANA Periodic Review could be incorporated as part of those efforts. Further details on the mechanics of such a review are available and can be shared should the CCWG confirm that this is indeed something that can be incorporated as part of the CCWG’s efforts. • Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) Response: The CWG recommends that the CCWG should be mindful of the recommendations of the CWG in relation to an appeals mechanism for ccTLDs and the survey results that led to this recommendation which notes that ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (post-transition). As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover ccTLD delegation / re-delegation issues as these are expected to be developed by the ccTLD community through the appropriate processes. However, the CWG does want to emphasize the importance and need for an appeal mechanism to cover any other issues that may involve IANA and notes that this is option is expected to be specifically called out as one of the possible escalation mechanisms in the draft transition proposal. <Portion de message joint.txt>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community Giovanni Seppia External Relations Manager EURid Woluwelaan 150 1831 Diegem - Belgium TEL: +32 (0) 2 401 2750 MOB:+39 335 8141733 giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu<mailto:giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu> http://www.eurid.eu<http://www.eurid.eu/> [cid:2934C4EE-CAF2-4BA4-9DC0-AB9A25CC6ADC@Docomointertouch.com] #2015euWA Please consider the environment before printing this email.<http://christmas2014.eurid.eu> Disclaimer: This email and any attachment hereto is intended solely for the person to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this email in error, please delete it and immediately contact the sender by telephone or email, and destroy any copies of this information. You should not use or copy it, nor disclose its content to any other person or rely upon this information. Please note that any views presented in the email and any attachment hereto are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of EURid. While all care has been taken to avoid any known viruses, the recipient is advised to check this email and any attachment for presence of viruses. http://www.eurid.eu/en/legal-disclaimer
