I’m beginning to think that I may have a blind spot here. Help me to figure this out.Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused... and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated.Agreed. So the remarks by Chuck re ccTLDs are surprising.The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent.How does that sit with Chuck’s suggest that the CCWG...provide an accountability process that registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of
ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation
decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local
law.Unless I’m misreading this then it is saying that coming up with such a process is the job of the CCWG.The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt.Agreed that this is the CWG’s role. Chuck’s point was about the expectations of the CCWG on Accountability.
Cheers,
Chris
On 16 Jan 2015, at 22:43 , Paul M Kane <Paul.Kane@icb.co.uk> wrote:Chris
Just for clarification, the CWG group is _very_ gTLD Registry focused... and Chuck is very gTLD Registry orientated.
During yesterday's call it was recognised that (the majority of) ccTLDs Registries have a very different relationship with ICANN than that of gTLDs Registries.
The gTLDs want the CWG Accountability Group to have a role in determining an Appeals process, whereas it was recognised that ICANN's role with respect to (the majority of) ccTLD reassignment was non-existent.
The goal of the CWG should be to create a light weight structure of service delivery - as discussed (and agreed) in Frankfurt.
Over the holiday period the process has been captured and the simple (accountable) structure has become seriously over-complicated. Overburdening the structure is a game currently being played by some to sink the initiative, or capture it, and time is needed to redress the balance and loose the excess baggage.
IMHO it is out of scope for the IANA Accountability process to have a sanction to remove an ICANN Director - but this also needs more time to play out.
Best
Paul
Chris Disspain wrote:Understood Roelof.
My point is that Chuck and others seem to think that it is the CCWG’s job to come up with something cc-specific re delegation and re-delegation ‘disputes’ rather than higher level accountability mechanisms. If we as a community are happy with that then so be it. If we are not then we need to tell them.
Cheers,
Chris
On 16 Jan 2015, at 21:01 , Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> wrote:Chris, All,
I would hope that the CCWG comes up with mechanisms that enhance ICANN¹s
accountability on a higher level than (just) delegation, revocation etc.
I am comfortable waiting for (and as I am a member, contributing to) the
deliverables of the CCWG, in the expectation that, once accountability is
enhanced and stewardship transitioned, the outcome of the FoIWG can be
inputted, with satisfactory results for us ccTLDs.
Yes, I am an optimist, life is great
Cheers,
Roelof
On 16-01-15 07:53, "Stephen Deerhake" <SDeerhake@nic.as <mailto:SDeerhake@nic.as>> wrote:Chris,
Speaking for .as, I can say that the idea that "the CCWG [be tasked] with
drafting/creating an accountability process re delegation and
re-delegation"
is a complete non-starter.
How can this be even be a serious consideration of the CCWG?
I believe this issue has been addressed by the work of the FoI-WG, and I
don't see the need to re-invent the wheel here. Perhaps the larger
problem
is getting ICANN to acknowledge and endorse the work/findings of the
FoI-WG... I've seen scant evidence of this to date.
Best,
/Stephen
Stephen Deerhake
Director of Registry Services
AS Domain Registry
GDNS LLC
+1 212 334 3660
+1 212 656 1982 (fax)
sdeerhake@nic.as <mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as>
sdeerhake@gdns.net
-----Original Message-----
From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org
[mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Disspain
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 5:58 PM
To: ccTLD Community List; ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members;
cctldworld@icann.org
Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Fwd: Accountability measures required by CWG
Proposal(s)
Importance: High
All,We need the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability processregistry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of
that
ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation
decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local
law.
I know I keep pressing on this but I want to make sure we all understand
before I stop and let it go.
Are we, the ccTLDs comfortable with the CCWG drafting/creating an
accountability process re delegation and re-delegation?
Is this something we should be doing ourselves pursuant to the
interpretations of the FoI WG?
Cheers,
Chris
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name
Administrator
Important Notice - This email may contain information which is
confidential
and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the
named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email
by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Begin forwarded message:From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>Proposal(s)
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWGDate: 16 January 2015 01:55:07 AEDTneed the Accountability CCWG to provide an accountability process that
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, CWG IANA
<cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
Alan,
First let me put in writing the what I said in the last weekend call:
We
registry operators (c's & g's) and possibly governments in the case of
ccTLDs can use in cases where they think delegation and re-delegation
decisions are not in line with approved policy or for governments local
law.
This may be covered by your item 4 (gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal
within ICANN prior to the change request going to IANA) although I am not
sure that appeals would always have to happen before going to IANA; that
would be preferred though.certification for delegation and re-delegation requests)? In the case of
Alan - why do you think that this would conflict with item 2
(Independent
gTLDs, the decision whether or not a gTLD could be delegated or
re-delegated
would happen before any certification would occur. The certification
would
simply confirm that required steps were followed properly. For gTLDs I
think that any appeal would preferably happen before any certification
happened but I suppose it could happen afterwards; those details would
need
to be defined. I won't try to venture into the ccTLD world.something that we need the Accountability CCWG to deal with that. In my
On a totally different topic with regard to item 2, I don't think that
is
view, that seems to be clearly in our court. Any accountability for a
certification decision would probably be covered by general accountability
processes.from the CCWG. I agree that we need some specific accountability
Why is item 6 (Ability to Remove Directors) an action that the CWG needs
mechanisms
from the CCWG but we don't specifically need the one that would allow for
the removal of Directors. That option may provide some of the
accountability that the CWG needs but we require that specific option.accountability-related processes that would be required based on the two
Chuck
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icannorg] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:12 AM
To: CWG IANA
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG
Proposal(s)
I believe that this is the minimalist list of accountability measures or
proposals currently under consideration.considering for possible inclusion in its WS1, specifically those which
I have explicitly not included the wider list of measures that the CCWG
is
the
community would like to see and for which the IANA transition might
provide
additional impetus for the Board to approve, but are not absolutely
required
to ensure that the IANA transition can occur. I recognize that this is a
judgement call that not all might agree with.additional issue, and referred to a chat exchange between him and Donna
During the last of the four weekend meetings, Chuck mentioned one
during the third meeting that listed several other potential
accountability
issues. Unfortunately, that chat transcript was not preserved due to an
error in saving it.the Co-Chairs created in December, augmented by Chucks suggestion. I do
The list of measures for the Contract Co. model is based on the list
that
not
believe that the December list has been negated by any work done in the
interim, but perhaps I have missed something. I could not find a rationale
for the inclusion of the first of the three items, but include it here so
that the CWG could decide if it is based on a real need associated with
the
proposal or not. If included, I would suggest the CWG be more specific as
to
under what conditions it would apply. Chuck's suggestion seems to conflict
with the 2nd measure in that the 2nd measure is specified as being
binding.
I am also not sure if it could possibly be replaced by the more
generalized
IAP (once the request goes to IANA).discussions with a number of people over the last weeks.
The requirements for the internal-to-ICANN model are based on mydefined) the determinations of an Independent Review of Board Actions
Contract Co. Model Requirements
1. Independent Review of Board Actions
Change the ICANN Bylaws to specify that under certain circumstances (to
be
Panel
would be binding and not implemented at the Board's discretions.to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA.
2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests
This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all
changes
The
replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and
re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision
on
these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA.to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still
3. Independent Appeals Panel
An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested
changes
ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed
that
the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need
for
an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the
appeal process.gTLD, based on policy not being followed (or presumably contractual terms
4. gTLD Delegation or Redelegation Appeal within ICANN prior to the
change request going to IANA
A Registry could appeal an ICANN decision to delegate or redelegate and
not being followed).non-ICANN entities, to mandate or overrule, a particular Board decision,
Internal-To-ICANN Model Requirements
This model will require all of the above measures plus the following:
5. Control over ICANN Board decisions.
The ability for ICANN Stakeholders, potentially augmented by other
or
to require that the implementation of such a decision be subject to
consideration of an independent, binding review. These measures might need
to be augmented by advance notice of such decisions and allow the MS
community to react. In the most restricted form, this ability might be
restricted to decisions related to IANA, but in reality, it may not be
practical to define this scope limitation (ie how to recognize an
IANA-related decision).all of the Board Directors. In the case of a full Board removal, a
6. Ability to Remove Directors
The ability of the overall multi-stakeholder community to remove some or
mechanism
would be required for appointing an Interim Board and then a replacement
regular Board. In addition, ACs and SOs could be given the right to recall
their appointed Director(s).
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________
ccTLDcommunity mailing list
ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org
http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to
ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________
ccTLDcommunity mailing list
ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org
http://www.lists.cctld-managers.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldcommunity
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to
ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
_______________________________________________
Cctldworld mailing list
Cctldworld@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cctldworld