April 13, 2015
3:23 p.m.
Dear Colleagues,
As you may know, the CWG has started today an intense work period of 2
days. You will find the notes of the 1st session below. Thomas and I
were invited to provide an update on the CCWG.
You will also note that the CWG puts emphasis on their expectations
towards our work. We can expect a consolidation of these requirements to
be sent to us shortly after their 2 days of work.
For illustration purposes, the first session already addressed :
- budget requirement
> *Statement for CCWG*: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we
> need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all
> IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed.
- ccTLD delegation appeals
> *Statement for CCWG*: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the
> DT-B survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to
> develop their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later
> date (it is not required as part of the transition proposal).
- also mention of a periodic review of IANA performance
> These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews.
Best
Mathieu
-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : [CWG-Stewardship] Notes, Recordings, Transcript CWG IANA
Meeting #35 - 13 April
Date : Mon, 13 Apr 2015 14:47:01 +0000
De : Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer@icann.org>
Pour : cwg-stewardship@icann.org <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Dear all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CWG IANA Meeting #35 on 13
April are available here:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52896576
*Action Items*
*Action (staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years"
language***
*Notes*
*1. Opening Remarks *
·
·Welcome -- chairs are co-located in ICANN Brussels office for two days.
·6 sessions in high intensity meeting: structural discussions with
Sidley and functional/operational discussion with DTs.
·Convergence of views is critical. Amazing work and coordination in
Istanbul. Let's retain that spirit.
·Need to develop and work on relationship with CCWG-Acct. Both groups
(CWG and CCWG) use Sidley Austin as legal counsel. Need to further
refine the list of requirements/recommendations for CCWG. They are aware
of the time pressure we are under, and that they are thus under as well.
·There was a request to move DT-A to meeting #36, and we have therefore
pushed up discussion on DT-N.
4 areas of input for CCWG-Acct:
·
·ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around
cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions)
·Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a
confidence vote option)
·Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a
'fundamental bylaw' mechanism)
·Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues)
The CCWG-Acct Chairs of the will do a recap today of where things stand
from their end.
*2. CCWG-Accountability Update***(Thomas Rickert and Mathieu Weill)
The group has been further developing its building blocks for the
accountability framework. Some of the elements being looked at include
Board recall, independent review panel, inclusion of periodic review in
the bylaws.
CCWG has a vision for the advanced accountability infrastructure and
CCWG is working with two firms to see how the requirements can be
implemented under CA law.
CCWG is considering dividing WS1 into two areas of focus. First priority
would be the CWG requirements.
If there could be a list of items elaborated from the 4 areas of input,
that would be useful to CCWG. Also useful to have use cases for testing.
All 26 CCWG-Acct stress tests appear to satisfy the work/vision of the
CCWG-Acct. Some have been identified already as relating to the CWG.
Work is ongoing and satisfactory for now.
Wiki link:https://community.icann.org/x/UAEdAw
*3. DT-O (budget)*
·DT-O worked quickly and closely and had assistance from Xavier Calvez
·Explanation for recommendation 2: ICANN does not capture its costs on a
functional basis. ICANN's Finance team has provided an itemization for
FY15. Doing this for FY16 is not possible yet, because the CWG hasn't
decided on a structure.
·Annex X suggests items to be addressed in the future. These are items
that would need to be reviewed once there is clarity on what the CWG
proposes as a solution.
·No disagreement with DT-O recommendations
·CCWG is looking at a budget veto -- is this a dependency that needs to
be addressed with the CCWG?
·Who should be consulted as part of the budget process for IANA?
Question to consider as we develop the rest of CWG proposal
·If there was a veto for IANA aspects, who gets to exercise the veto?
·The CCWG is providing the community with the tools. We need the
community veto tool
*Statement for CCWG*: We support the idea of budget veto tool, and we
need CCWG to deliver on this. Budget should include itemization of all
IANA operations costs to project level and below as needed.
*4. DT-B (ccTLD appeals)*
·Dealing with question of whether or not there was a need for a ccTLD
appeals mechanism
·Survey closed on 3 April (only 28 responses were received)
·Low response rate would not allow mandate for CWG to proceed with
designing an appeals mechanism now.
·So recommendation is to not pursue this now
·The ccTLDs may decide to develop their own appeals mechanism regarding
re/delegation at a later date.
·For gTLDs, are the appeals provisions already? Only if there is an
agreement. If a gTLD is not delegated, then there is no agreement and
provisions to rely on. However, since this is a policy issue, it may not
be appropriate for the CWG to require this of the CCWG.
*Statement for CCWG*: For ccTLDs, the CCWG should be mindful of the DT-B
survey results and recommendations that ccTLDs may decide to develop
their own appeals mechanism regarding re/delegation at a later date (it
is not required as part of the transition proposal).
*5. DT-N (Periodic Review)*
·These reviews would be similar to the AOC reviews.
·First review after 2 years, and then every 5 years after that
·Are there other cases that could trigger reviews (other than the
calendar? The CSC should be able to trigger a review after an emergency
has been dealt with
·The periodic review could initiate a RFP is review results indicated
that this was a necessary next step. Is this something that the CWG
thinks is in scope? Yes, but perhaps a question for public comment
·Does the review expand to address IANA policy?
·Suggest language "no more than 5 years" for the review period.
*Action*(staff): edit DT-N text to reflect "no more than 5 years" language
*6. AOB*
*7. Closing Remarks*
