Dear Accountability colleagues Some sections of this paper draft being discussed in the CWG are worth noting, specifically the accountability ones. Best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Martin Boyle* <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> Date: Tuesday, 3 March 2015 Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Colleagues, My apologies, but following the Christmas break I failed to progress this discussion. I now attach a revised draft, still with a major outstanding issue in g. (page 2). There are two variants for g.ii. One simply reduces the previous paragraph to read "For ccTLDs, respect national sovereignty;" at the request of the GAC. The other is more closely based on, but shortens, the previous text: "For ccTLDs, policy decisions may be made locally through nationally agreed processes in accordance with national laws and in compliance with IETF technical standards. Post transition of the IANA function nothing will be done by ICANN/IANA to impact the stable operation of ccTLD Registries and gTLD Registries." The draft contains a number of marked up edits from previous discussions that seem to have general agreement. For the text redlines: 1. I have deleted the section heading "Introduction": there are no other section headings, so this appears to be superfluous. 2. Principles b. and c. (previously sub-clauses to the heading on security, stability and resilience) are now stand-alone at the request of the GAC. 3. Accountability & transparency (e.): a. Paragraph i: two edits that appear to have general agreement. b. Paragraph ii: a new edit to correct the text. The new version amends the text to reflect the sub-heading. The old version put it the other way around. c. Paragraph iv: Footnote on capture added as requested courtesy of Alan Greenberg & Milton Mueller. d. Paragraph vi: While I think we all agree on the need for some form of appeals process, there is still some debate as to where that should lie. So for example, the appeals process might well not be designed by the CWG and might be the responsibility of the CCWG. For ccTLDs, it might mean that a third party might have a say over a national decision on a ccTLD. I flag this in case further thought is needed in the light of discussion over the last few days. 4. Service levels (f.): a. Paragraph ii: I think the majority view is that automation should only be for routine functions (and not for controversial or subjective decisions such as on redelegations). b. Paragraph iii: Previously a stand-alone point. 5. Policy based (g): other than some minor editing, there are two alternatives for g.ii. as noted above. I would note that there was no support in our last discussion to retain g.vi. (require bottom-up modalities) as this is treated elsewhere (in particular in the chapeau text to g.). 6. Diversity of customers (h.): some (I hope) minor and uncontroversial edits in the chapeau and in i. and ii. The text in paragraph iii was generally agreed. 7. Separability: modifications to i.i. and i.iii generally agreed in the last discussion. 8. Multi-stakeholder principle paragraph j: generally agreed in the last discussion subject to concerns about wording (the previous text appeared to recommend direct involvement in the management of the IANA function). -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz Sent on the run, apologies for brevity