---------------------------------

PROCESS :

Mentions the impact of the delay in starting the CCWG

The misalignment of the IANA CWG’s and the Accountability CCWG’s schedules created significant issues for both groups and has negatively impacted the CWG’s ability to complete the development of a transition proposal."

Coordination mentioned as one of the actions taken in response to these conclusions

The co-chairs have undertaken discussion with the ICG and the CCWG to revise the CWG schedule in order to present it at the Singapore meeting.
Steps were taken to improve and further extend coordination of the work of the CWG and the work of the CCWG Accountability, in particular its work on work stream 1.

Mentions the revised timeline developed in coordination

A revised timeline for the delivery of a CWG transition has been developed, coordinated with the CCWG and communicated to the ICG. The revised timeline can be found at (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52887763/ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1422991643000&api=v2 ). Note that it shows a best case scenario that provides for delivering a proposal to the ICG in June 2015, assuming that the following risk factors can be minimized:

Legal advice can be obtained as shown in the timeline.
Consensus can be reached in the community on a proposal as shown in the timeline.
The chartering Stakeholder Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) are able to approve the proposal in the 21 days shown in the timeline.

Next steps :

Still expects to base its proposal including the WS1 recommendations.

"Then it will hopefully be able to quickly finalize a transition proposal that could include the recommendations of the CCWG Work Stream 1 recommendations and that has the strong support of all major components of the multistakeholder community."

PROPOSALS :

The Independent Appeals Panel is a common point between both models being discussed (Contract, Co. vs Trust model).

Independent Appeals Panel (IAP) –All decisions and actions (including deliberate inaction) of the IANA Functions Operator that affect the Root Zone or Root Zone WHOIS database would be subject to an independent and binding appeals panel. The appeals mechanism should also cover any policy implementation actions that affect the execution of changes to the Root Zone File or Root Zone WHOIS and how relevant policies are applied. Note that the appeals mechanism for ccTLDs, if any, may look very different than for gTLDs.

One of the option, the Internal Bylaw model, rests upon the principle of a "Golden Bylaw". This has strong relationship with our WS1 requirement (WP1) regarding oversight of the community in case of change of the Bylaws (or certain sections of the Bylaws).

This model would also include the MRT within the Icann Bylaws. Same for the IAP.

The Internal Trust option creates a Guardian of the Trust, which could be a cross community WG. There might be a connection with the community empowerment mechanisms the CCWG is setting up to explore.

"External options" are less connected to the CCWG since accountability issues are transferred outside Icann, but the issues may remain similar. One might suggest that the work on definitions & scoping, as well as some of the requirements discussed in Frankfurt, could be helpful to further work on these options.