Dear Byron, Paul and ccNSO council,
I will gladly provide you all with an update.
Regarding the ccTLD members call it is correct that we could not find a date since I was busy Monday - Wednesday and Maarten is on holiday the other dates. Maybe we can have some help from ccNSO staff to schedule a call next week - maybe
by doing a Doodle.
21st December the CWG sent our response to the CCWG proposal. The CCWG is at the moment working hard on implementing this response and other input into the draft proposal - and ICANN staff is tracking this implementation. The CCWG
work with a first and second reading and have meetings twice a week. Because of this very intensive work plan from the CCWG - we the CWG were asked by the CCWG chairs to review the issues we had raised in our December response - on fly so to speak. We discussed
this way of working in the CWG and agreed on reviewing the document by sending them to the CWG list. Therefore Jonathan and I have sent out the documents regarding the CWG budget requirement, the separation power and IRP for further review to the CWG on email
list – as agreed on our last CWG call 12th January.
So the CCWG proposal on the requirements in question have been circulated to the CWG list and I am surprised to hear that Paul is not receiving them. I have checked with CWG staff and the CWG mailing list includes two of Pauls email
addresses - paul.kane@icb.co.uk and
paul.kane-cwg@icb.co.uk . To be precise the documents the CWG has to review in relation to how the CCWG proposal is implementing the requests from the CWG are all sent to the
cwg-stewardship@icann.org list.
Regarding the budget and the separation power we only received 3 replies from the group - Martin Boyle, Chuck Gomes and Andrew Sullivan. All three replies were regarding the budget. After the deadline the three replies were sent to the
CCWG with the CWG copied. I strongly believe that we actually enforced the text regarding the budget by making it more detailed on what to include in the PTI budget so I cannot recognise the perception that the safeguards have been watered down.
Furthermore we have had a lengthy discussion online regarding the IRP and how to implement this so both issues in relation to ccTLDs and gTLDs were covered by an appeal mechanism. For these comments we had a dead-line Monday evening
23.59 UTC. The CWG are sending the documents to the whole CWG list and not only to a small subset of members. I have copied Martin Boyles last submission to the list regarding the IRP. Paul raised the problem about not receiving the emails at our last
call. Paul and I will have a call tomorrow and I hope to be able to help him receive the emails on the list.
To summarise:
·
I agree with Paul there is a need to have frequent calls with the ccTLD members and participants of the CWG and I hope that we can start having these on a regular basis with the help from ccNSO staff.
·
The CCWG draft proposal as published in December needed some additional text to implement our requirements in a satisfying way, but this additional text is being written into the proposal by the CWG advising the CCWG on these
matters by the methods explained above.
·
I do not find that the CWG's proposal has been manipulated nor the safeguards watered down.
If you need more update on this issue or questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
Lise
-----Original Message-----
From: Byron Holland [mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca]
Sent: 27 January 2016 18:32
To: Lise Fuhr
Cc: paul.kane@icb.co.uk;
ccnso-council@icann.org
Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Fwd: Work of CWG
Hi Lise,
As CWG Co-Chair, could you please provide an update on the concerns that Paul has raised?
Thank you,
Byron
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: January-26-16 1:44 PM
To: ccnso-council@icann.org
Cc: paul.kane@icb.co.uk
Subject: [ccnso-council] Fwd: Work of CWG
Paul Kane has asked me to forward this to the ccNSO council.
Somewhat concerning . . .
What thoughts to Councillors have?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Work of CWG
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:13:19 +0000
From: pkane@cdns.net
To: 'ccNSO Council' <ccnso-council@icann.org>
CC: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>
Quick update
It is good to have our 5th member back - welcome Maarten. There are so many moving parts and the unique ccTLD position is being ignored/weakened.
I proposed we had a ccTLD reps coordination call this week but Lise is busy (obviously starting her new job she is going to be busy) and Maarten is away on a skiing holiday - no reply from the others.
Update - the CWG Stewardship members are being asked to review the latest transition documents in their entirety to determine if they are happy with the (revised) Accountability proposals and the updated CWG proposal to ascertain if
it meets their needs in advance of our next call.
For the record, the CWG's proposal has been manipulated (by whom I do not know) and some of the safeguards have been watered down. At our last call (Thursday 21st Jan) I asked that all docs for review be immediately sent to the CWG Stewardship
mailing list so _all_ members (not a small
subset) had the opportunity to review and make a determination if the ICANN and the PTI's obligations had been reinstated. I advised that I was willing to review the docs last weekend but the docs have NOT been published on the CWG
Stewardship mailing list... so I have NOT seen the latest docs.
The current strategy seems to be to work with a small subset and obscure the details (and infer acquiescence), so the transition can stay on course.
For the record I am NOT in a position to lend my support to the current proposal as I do not know the details of the (current) revised proposal.
Our ccTLD coordination call has been postponed and our mailing list is silent ..... :-(
Best
Paul