Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
Tijani - this is the version that was approved by the ccNSO Council. Regards Allan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: August-22-14 4:16 AM To: Byron Holland; 'Marika Konings'; 'Julie Hammer'; 'Avri Doria' Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Good morning Byron, My understanding is that the chair(s) of the drafting team will make a call for approval to all chartering organizations. I already circulated the latest version to the ALAC list asking for comments. Also, you are referring to the version circulated by Marika, but there were several versions circulated by Marika. Now that you are asking for the chartering organizations approval, it is better to attach the version you want them to approve to avoid any confusion. So, I'm ready to call for the approval of ALAC if you prefer this way of working. But I need you to send the version approved by the ccNSO. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Byron Holland Envoyé : jeudi 21 août 2014 22:26 À : Marika Konings; Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc : cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Dear All - I just want to follow-up on the status of the charter. Though I agree to reinserting the words "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group" into the draft, I had already circulated the version without these to my council. However, I am pleased to report that at our meeting this morning the ccNSO Council approved the charter and that these words were discussed and reinserted at that time. So the version that Marika circulated on Monday is that which was approved by the ccNSO Council. Could I ask the other SO/AC representatives send this version to their chairs with the news that it has been approved by the ccNSO Council. I will undertake to send it to Heather Dryden, as chair of the GAC. I would appreciate being kept informed of the status of the approval process in these other groups. I also undertake to send it to representativ es of the Internet protocols and addressing communities so that they might understand where we stand. Finally, let we add my thanks and congratulations to the drafting team for your hard work in producing such a quality document in such a short period of time. Byron -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: August-18-14 11:27 AM To: Byron Holland; Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Dear All, Based on the comments on the mailing list as well as initial feedback from the GNSO Council list, there is support for adding back in the sentence that was deleted in section II last paragraph of the scope section as pointed out by Chuck, namely: ""Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." For your convenience, please find attached a revised version of the charter that includes this sentence for distribution to your groups. Should any additional comments come in from your respective groups, you may want to relay these to the DT so it can be determined whether further changes are needed / desirable, noting that the further along the consideration of the charter by the different groups goes, the more time it may take to pull back the charter and incorporate possible changes to make sure all groups adopt the same version. As in this case it concerns a sentence that was probably inadvertantly deleted, hopefully it will not cause any major issues. Best regards, Marika On 14/08/14 18:15, "Byron Holland" <byron.holland@cira.ca<mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> wrote:
I was about to hit 'send' to circulate the draft charter to my council.
But seeing these comments, and being in agreement with them, I have taken
the liberty of replacing our paragraph under 'Relationship to ICANN
Accountability Review Process' with the words used by the ICG. I have
attached both a 'track changes' version and a 'clean' version.
But now I must really send this out to my council.
Byron
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer
Sent: August-14-14 10:31 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
Hi Avri,
Thanks for the feedback and sorry to hear you've been getting a hard time.
Re Milton's comments about our wording, I agree that the ICG Charter is
essentially saying the same thing that we are, but probably more
eloquently. If there is strong feeling about our language, I would not
object to using the same (probably better language) as the ICG in our CWG
charter.
Cheers, Julie
On 14 Aug 2014, at 11:54 pm, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
On 13-Aug-14 10:46, Allan MacGillivray wrote:
Milton Mueller has even characterized it as being 'impressive'
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>. Congratulations to everyone who
worked on it.
Perhaps, but he is slamming me for it now. Indicating that we missed a
chance to link the CWG to the Transparency work.
I am wondering why this statement on accountability seems to assume
that there is "no linkage" between ICANN accountability and IANA
accountability, when, in fact, there is.
"Any linkages between the work of the CWG on the IANA transition and
the broader ICANN Accountability Review Process with regard to ICANN
policy are outside the scope of this group's work. Accountability for
the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and
operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of
this working group."
The ICG charter handled this relationship in a much better way:
" The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a
parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability.
While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance
is central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the
arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an
accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the
NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated
and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work."
I have argued:
I think they both say a similar thing.
- the greater ICANN accountability is seperate - accountability
related to IANA is in scope
and
On 13-Aug-14 17:32, Dan Krimm wrote:
So, if one accepts as true the notion that each jurisdiction's
results will affect the other jurisdiction significantly, then even
if the specific working groups have narrow scope of authority and
jurisdiction, they still ought to be talking to each other along the
way, perhaps cross-pollinating each other with ideas and monitoring
each others' progress.
I do. I think that making IANA accountability part of the CWG's work
it accepts the challenge of coordinating them. And maybe even going
further than passive coordination.
Another point, is that IANA accountability is what counts in this
case, and while unlikely that some entity other than ICANN will end up
ultimately responsible for IANA, the accountability requirements for
that function stand separate and should apply to whatever entity ends
up responsible, next year or in 10 years. As such this group could
come up with requirements that do not immediately fall inside whatever
it is we end up doing about ICANN accountability - remember the note
we just sent about the ICANN accountability processes seeming rigged.
This is a good topic for discussion, and should be brought up in the
GNSO council discussions by our council members (myself included) if
we continue to find it problematic.
and repsonse from Milton
The statement of the ICG is even stronger than Dan suggests. We said:
"the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should
appropriately coordinate their work."
This is not just "talking to each other" and "cross pollinating, it
suggests that they are interdependent and thus should coordinate. An
extreme example of such interdependency and coordination would be to
not complete the transition until certain commitments are made on the
broader accountability process. I am afraid the CWG charter sets up
the false notion that the two things are completely detached and
separate processes, which is exactly what ICANN wants and exactly what
advocates of accountability don't want.
I don't understand why Avri is not seeing this and offering apologias
for the oversight in the CWG charter.
cheers,
avri
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.
Thanks Allan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- De : Allan MacGillivray [mailto:allan.macgillivray@cira.ca] Envoyé : vendredi 22 août 2014 14:28 À : tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn; Byron Holland; 'Marika Konings'; 'Julie Hammer'; 'Avri Doria' Cc : cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Objet : RE: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Tijani this is the version that was approved by the ccNSO Council. Regards Allan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: August-22-14 4:16 AM To: Byron Holland; 'Marika Konings'; 'Julie Hammer'; 'Avri Doria' Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Good morning Byron, My understanding is that the chair(s) of the drafting team will make a call for approval to all chartering organizations. I already circulated the latest version to the ALAC list asking for comments. Also, you are referring to the version circulated by Marika, but there were several versions circulated by Marika. Now that you are asking for the chartering organizations approval, it is better to attach the version you want them to approve to avoid any confusion. So, Im ready to call for the approval of ALAC if you prefer this way of working. But I need you to send the version approved by the ccNSO. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -----Message d'origine----- De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Byron Holland Envoyé : jeudi 21 août 2014 22:26 À : Marika Konings; Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc : cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Dear All - I just want to follow-up on the status of the charter. Though I agree to reinserting the words "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group" into the draft, I had already circulated the version without these to my council. However, I am pleased to report that at our meeting this morning the ccNSO Council approved the charter and that these words were discussed and reinserted at that time. So the version that Marika circulated on Monday is that which was approved by the ccNSO Council. Could I ask the other SO/AC representatives send this version to their chairs with the news that it has been approved by the ccNSO Council. I will undertake to send it to Heather Dryden, as chair of the GAC. I would appreciate being kept informed of the status of the approval process in these other groups. I also undertake to send it to representativ es of the Internet protocols and addressing communities so that they might understand where we stand. Finally, let we add my thanks and congratulations to the drafting team for your hard work in producing such a quality document in such a short period of time. Byron -----Original Message----- From: Marika Konings [ <mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: August-18-14 11:27 AM To: Byron Holland; Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Dear All, Based on the comments on the mailing list as well as initial feedback from the GNSO Council list, there is support for adding back in the sentence that was deleted in section II last paragraph of the scope section as pointed out by Chuck, namely: ""Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." For your convenience, please find attached a revised version of the charter that includes this sentence for distribution to your groups. Should any additional comments come in from your respective groups, you may want to relay these to the DT so it can be determined whether further changes are needed / desirable, noting that the further along the consideration of the charter by the different groups goes, the more time it may take to pull back the charter and incorporate possible changes to make sure all groups adopt the same version. As in this case it concerns a sentence that was probably inadvertantly deleted, hopefully it will not cause any major issues. Best regards, Marika On 14/08/14 18:15, "Byron Holland" < <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca> byron.holland@cira.ca> wrote:
I was about to hit 'send' to circulate the draft charter to my council.
But seeing these comments, and being in agreement with them, I have taken
the liberty of replacing our paragraph under 'Relationship to ICANN
Accountability Review Process' with the words used by the ICG. I have
attached both a 'track changes' version and a 'clean' version.
But now I must really send this out to my council.
Byron
-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
[ <mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer
Sent: August-14-14 10:31 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
Hi Avri,
Thanks for the feedback and sorry to hear you've been getting a hard time.
Re Milton's comments about our wording, I agree that the ICG Charter is
essentially saying the same thing that we are, but probably more
eloquently. If there is strong feeling about our language, I would not
object to using the same (probably better language) as the ICG in our CWG
charter.
Cheers, Julie
On 14 Aug 2014, at 11:54 pm, Avri Doria < <mailto:avri@acm.org> avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 13-Aug-14 10:46, Allan MacGillivray wrote:
Milton Mueller has even characterized it as being 'impressive'
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>. Congratulations to everyone who
worked on it.
Perhaps, but he is slamming me for it now. Indicating that we missed a
chance to link the CWG to the Transparency work.
I am wondering why this statement on accountability seems to assume
that there is "no linkage" between ICANN accountability and IANA
accountability, when, in fact, there is.
"Any linkages between the work of the CWG on the IANA transition and
the broader ICANN Accountability Review Process with regard to ICANN
policy are outside the scope of this group's work. Accountability for
the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and
operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of
this working group."
The ICG charter handled this relationship in a much better way:
" The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a
parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability.
While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance
is central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the
arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an
accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the
NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated
and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work."
I have argued:
I think they both say a similar thing.
- the greater ICANN accountability is seperate - accountability
related to IANA is in scope
and
On 13-Aug-14 17:32, Dan Krimm wrote:
So, if one accepts as true the notion that each jurisdiction's
results will affect the other jurisdiction significantly, then even
if the specific working groups have narrow scope of authority and
jurisdiction, they still ought to be talking to each other along the
way, perhaps cross-pollinating each other with ideas and monitoring
each others' progress.
I do. I think that making IANA accountability part of the CWG's work
it accepts the challenge of coordinating them. And maybe even going
further than passive coordination.
Another point, is that IANA accountability is what counts in this
case, and while unlikely that some entity other than ICANN will end up
ultimately responsible for IANA, the accountability requirements for
that function stand separate and should apply to whatever entity ends
up responsible, next year or in 10 years. As such this group could
come up with requirements that do not immediately fall inside whatever
it is we end up doing about ICANN accountability - remember the note
we just sent about the ICANN accountability processes seeming rigged.
This is a good topic for discussion, and should be brought up in the
GNSO council discussions by our council members (myself included) if
we continue to find it problematic.
and repsonse from Milton
The statement of the ICG is even stronger than Dan suggests. We said:
"the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should
appropriately coordinate their work."
This is not just "talking to each other" and "cross pollinating, it
suggests that they are interdependent and thus should coordinate. An
extreme example of such interdependency and coordination would be to
not complete the transition until certain commitments are made on the
broader accountability process. I am afraid the CWG charter sets up
the false notion that the two things are completely detached and
separate processes, which is exactly what ICANN wants and exactly what
advocates of accountability don't want.
I don't understand why Avri is not seeing this and offering apologias
for the oversight in the CWG charter.
cheers,
avri
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Image supprimée par l'expéditeur. Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/> est active. --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
participants (2)
-
Allan MacGillivray -
Tijani BEN JEMAA