-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi,

I sent the following in reply:

>
>
> Seems mostly ok.  On the IAP, I thought there was also an element where the proposals may not be aligned and that CWG needed to also explore its own mechanisms.
>
> Also, should i should send it on to the WA 3  - am i authorized to do so.
>
> thanks
>
> avri

Got authorization to pass it on in the phone call. And asked for a day to reply.

Note I will be reporting on this in the CWG meeting on Thursday, so would like this sent before then,

avri

- -------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:     draft response to Lise and Jonathan
Date:     Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:55:45 +0100
From:     Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>
To:     Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>



Hi Avri,
we have prepared a response to Lise and Jonathan, which you find below. As promised, we keep you in the loop. Are you ok with us sending it as is?

Thanks,
Thomas

Dear Lise and Jonathan,


Thank you for the very useful call last Friday, 23 January.  It was
helpful to hear updates from the CWG, and I hope the overview we provided
of the CCWG's face-to-face meeting, Frankfurt 19-20 January, was
informative and showed we are working in the same direction.


We held a session in Frankfurt to discuss the draft "CWG-Stewardship
accountability dependencies" document, and the summary outcome of that
discussion follows.  You can also find details of the session, including
staff notes and transcript on the CCWG wiki
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418500 (noting
that the draft is a living document and we held our discussions on 19
January.


• Budget Accountability and Transparency
While the CCWG is considering reinforcing ICANN's accountability with
regards to budget, the mechanisms would most probably not specifically
address the IANA budget. Therefore we encourage the CWG to recommend
measures to enhance transparency regarding the IANA budget, we will
support requests for increased transparency.


• Accountability for (re)delegations
To the extent that the Board may take decisions on this area, CCWG intends
to recommend accountability mechanisms that would be relevant and
supportive. We expect to recommend a strengthened reconsideration process
for Board as well as management/staff decisions.


• Independent Review of Board Actions
CCWG is discussing introducing binding mechanisms of redress to the
independent review process for certain decisions of the Board. We are very
much in tune with CWG approach.


• Independent Appeals Panel
We expect CCWG recommendations to be supportive to the CWG proposals, we
aligned in our thinking/approach.


• Control over ICANN Board decisions.
When we met, this was a new section of the document and CCWG members had
not had chance to review before the meeting.  The CCWG is now considering
options to challenge and overturn ICANN Board decisions.  We are very
aware of the need for caution so as not to undermine the bottom-up nature
of the ICANN policy decision-making process.  Community oversight of Board
decisions would probably not extend to the ability to mandate a specific
decision, but rather to overturn a Board decision or require the Board to
make a decision in the case of inaction.


This avenue of work will be one of the focuses of CCWG attention for the
coming weeks.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUx+R/AAoJEOo+L8tCe36H0kUH/0tfzmiRYrLaAjzqU5KygxkO
hIV6T5i5tFfjssevYGIQdRwDgzsaEdYPY763nMXz9vYmgfiB03tlfL0CCCtC4Bxx
d26VdihXAjlNX15aNw8RB9h/fG++VxTn0k3ELGDzwhscuRoaoGLlI7fd3Z971jE8
KTjUaKJ16qmDs/xO5IK2bS6O+vUi6IBsgmtVFD2rdnImJPT6rGNdZN32MiutR+o+
vdiYpidU22/oWfb7IjQsIq4GZj6fS32VqGDln4ZVNQRvYan7jZnHC3zH0H+tdJ5M
2zCw/o48NtEPUjLbxZHhy18jyyJ3NLS8sY8Z+ZHeZtP5pn53Sv8YWETxf7NcyC0=
=FHQR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----