FYI, this letter was sent in accordance with our discussions on Friday. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : dimanche 6 mars 2016 10:15 À : 'James M. Bladel'; 'Thomas Schneider'; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Byron Holland'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net Cc : 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'Mathieu Weill'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Fadi Chehade'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'David Olive'; gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org; 'Carlos Reyes'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Julie Hedlund' Objet : Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG Accountability Dear Chartering Organizations, Since sending you our Work Stream 1 report on 23 February, we have started discussions around Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2. In fact, this was the particular focus of our Face-to-Face meeting on Friday, 4 March, and will also be the focus of our working session on Thursday morning. Implementation oversight role is not specifically detailed in our Charter, but it is the CCWG-Accountability’s view that the group’s role in implementation is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report, and furthermore to provide input on the implementation work when required by staff working on the implementation, or, if, and when necessary to bring the work back in line with the intent of the Work Stream 1 report. Since we expect the CCWG-Accountability to continue in its current form to work through Work Stream 2, the most logical option is to have the working group continue in its current form and with the responsibility to monitor the implementation and provide input where needed. Of course, this responsibility would include regular updates to the Chartering Organizations via the appointed members as well as consultations with the Chartering Organizations should issues be identified that are deemed without this specific remit. We note that, as an example of precedence, while the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and therefore available when needed to answer questions from the ICG, or to monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies, and to coordinate with the other operational communities on shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights. As the CCWG-Accountability Charter does not specifically address implementation, we would like to ensure that the CCWG-Accountability’s proposed approach in relation to implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and role of the CCWG-Accountability. We therefore propose to proceed to oversee the implementation work as described above unless there are objections from one or more Chartering Organizations. We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. We will put out a call for volunteers as we frame Work Stream 2 areas. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to offer that Chartering Organizations use this interim phase to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary. Thank you for your consideration, Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs