Hi all, Attached is the final version of the draft charter. I've included the name change requested by Allan and the edits by Julie. I linked to the 3 documents that Becky circulated instead of creating an Annex. The documents are easily accessible. Please let me know if I missed anything. Grace From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:50 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Marika, ...or, if those documents are easy to access, then we can just include a reference and not worry about an annex. Works for me either way. I will defer to Becky on this one. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 5:00 pm, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote: In relation to item 2, I believe the reference is to the following documents: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20Function%20 Summary%20Chart.docx?api=v2 and https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20SOW%20Summa ry.docx?api=v2 , which were provided by Becky at the start of the DT's deliberations which are also posted on the DT wiki page (https://community.icann.org/x/CLjhAg). One is a function summary and the other one a statement of work summary. If this is indeed correct, we can include both documents in the annex to the charter. Best regards, Marika From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com> Date: Wednesday 13 August 2014 00:34 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Grace and good morning everyone, I've had a final look through the document and all the emails that have come in overnight. I agree with the change of title proposed by Allan, I am happy with the revised wording covering consensus, and also happy with all the other proposed edits with a couple of small suggestions in the section titled 'Scope'. 1. The words that Grace captured in our teleconference regarding scope exclusions currently read: For greater certainty, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. I find the phrase 'For greater certainty' a little awkward. As this sentence follows another sentence about an exclusion, can I suggest we change this phrase to simply 'Additionally'? This would then read: The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. Additionally, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. 2. I also note that the second sentence under the heading 'Scope' states: The Annex to this Charter contains a summary and description of the IANA functions drawn from the NTIA¹s statement of work for that IANA contract. That Annex still needs to be added or the reference to it removed. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 4:00 am, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we are 6h away from our final edits deadline. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org> Date: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:59 PM To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Draft Charter -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!) Hi all, Attached are two versions of the updated draft charter (redline and clean). I used Stephanie's "minor edits" document as the base for the rest of the proposed changes. I've outlined the changes I made for your reference: * Section II: Included Julie's text (first sentence of "Goals & Objectives" section) * Section III: Deleted everything except for the first sentence in point 2 of the work plan, upon Chuck's suggestion. * Section IV:
* Included Stephanie's text. * Completed text relating to staff assignment in "Staffing & Resources" (Grace/Staff). * Included Allan's text on resourcing (can the DT confirm the placement of the text in the charter?). Note: I am missing text from Byron, but I left the text discussed on the call as a placeholder.
Final edits are due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!). Please let me know if you would like to schedule a final call. - Grace _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Did we ever find out whether Byron was going to provide revised wording for the section he had concerns about? If not, that could possibly be provided by the ccNSO in their approval of the draft charter. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:16 AM To: Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Hi all, Attached is the final version of the draft charter. I've included the name change requested by Allan and the edits by Julie. I linked to the 3 documents that Becky circulated instead of creating an Annex. The documents are easily accessible. Please let me know if I missed anything. Grace From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:50 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Marika, ...or, if those documents are easy to access, then we can just include a reference and not worry about an annex. Works for me either way. I will defer to Becky on this one. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 5:00 pm, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: In relation to item 2, I believe the reference is to the following documents: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20Function%20... and https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20SOW%20Summa... , which were provided by Becky at the start of the DT's deliberations which are also posted on the DT wiki page (https://community.icann.org/x/CLjhAg). One is a function summary and the other one a statement of work summary. If this is indeed correct, we can include both documents in the annex to the charter. Best regards, Marika From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday 13 August 2014 00:34 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Grace and good morning everyone, I've had a final look through the document and all the emails that have come in overnight. I agree with the change of title proposed by Allan, I am happy with the revised wording covering consensus, and also happy with all the other proposed edits with a couple of small suggestions in the section titled 'Scope'. 1. The words that Grace captured in our teleconference regarding scope exclusions currently read: For greater certainty, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. I find the phrase 'For greater certainty' a little awkward. As this sentence follows another sentence about an exclusion, can I suggest we change this phrase to simply 'Additionally'? This would then read: The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. Additionally, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. 2. I also note that the second sentence under the heading 'Scope' states: The Annex to this Charter contains a summary and description of the IANA functions drawn from the NTIA's statement of work for that IANA contract. That Annex still needs to be added or the reference to it removed. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 4:00 am, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we are 6h away from our final edits deadline. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:59 PM To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Draft Charter -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!) Hi all, Attached are two versions of the updated draft charter (redline and clean). I used Stephanie's "minor edits" document as the base for the rest of the proposed changes. I've outlined the changes I made for your reference: * Section II: Included Julie's text (first sentence of "Goals & Objectives" section) * Section III: Deleted everything except for the first sentence in point 2 of the work plan, upon Chuck's suggestion. * Section IV: * Included Stephanie's text. * Completed text relating to staff assignment in "Staffing & Resources" (Grace/Staff). * Included Allan's text on resourcing (can the DT confirm the placement of the text in the charter?). Note: I am missing text from Byron, but I left the text discussed on the call as a placeholder. Final edits are due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!). Please let me know if you would like to schedule a final call. - Grace _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Yes, I did confirm last night that I was satisfied with the language of the whole draft, including my own comment. That said, I like Julie's finetuning of my comment and am supportive of making that final edit. Thanks all, Byron From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: August-13-14 10:22 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Did we ever find out whether Byron was going to provide revised wording for the section he had concerns about? If not, that could possibly be provided by the ccNSO in their approval of the draft charter. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:16 AM To: Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Hi all, Attached is the final version of the draft charter. I've included the name change requested by Allan and the edits by Julie. I linked to the 3 documents that Becky circulated instead of creating an Annex. The documents are easily accessible. Please let me know if I missed anything. Grace From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:50 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Marika, ...or, if those documents are easy to access, then we can just include a reference and not worry about an annex. Works for me either way. I will defer to Becky on this one. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 5:00 pm, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: In relation to item 2, I believe the reference is to the following documents: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20Function%20... and https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20SOW%20Summa... , which were provided by Becky at the start of the DT's deliberations which are also posted on the DT wiki page (https://community.icann.org/x/CLjhAg). One is a function summary and the other one a statement of work summary. If this is indeed correct, we can include both documents in the annex to the charter. Best regards, Marika From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday 13 August 2014 00:34 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Grace and good morning everyone, I've had a final look through the document and all the emails that have come in overnight. I agree with the change of title proposed by Allan, I am happy with the revised wording covering consensus, and also happy with all the other proposed edits with a couple of small suggestions in the section titled 'Scope'. 1. The words that Grace captured in our teleconference regarding scope exclusions currently read: For greater certainty, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. I find the phrase 'For greater certainty' a little awkward. As this sentence follows another sentence about an exclusion, can I suggest we change this phrase to simply 'Additionally'? This would then read: The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. Additionally, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. 2. I also note that the second sentence under the heading 'Scope' states: The Annex to this Charter contains a summary and description of the IANA functions drawn from the NTIA's statement of work for that IANA contract. That Annex still needs to be added or the reference to it removed. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 4:00 am, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we are 6h away from our final edits deadline. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:59 PM To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Draft Charter -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!) Hi all, Attached are two versions of the updated draft charter (redline and clean). I used Stephanie's "minor edits" document as the base for the rest of the proposed changes. I've outlined the changes I made for your reference: * Section II: Included Julie's text (first sentence of "Goals & Objectives" section) * Section III: Deleted everything except for the first sentence in point 2 of the work plan, upon Chuck's suggestion. * Section IV: * Included Stephanie's text. * Completed text relating to staff assignment in "Staffing & Resources" (Grace/Staff). * Included Allan's text on resourcing (can the DT confirm the placement of the text in the charter?). Note: I am missing text from Byron, but I left the text discussed on the call as a placeholder. Final edits are due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!). Please let me know if you would like to schedule a final call. - Grace _______________________________________________ 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
I think that this is an excellent product. Milton Mueller has even characterized it as being 'impressive'<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it. Allan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: August-13-14 10:16 AM To: Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Hi all, Attached is the final version of the draft charter. I've included the name change requested by Allan and the edits by Julie. I linked to the 3 documents that Becky circulated instead of creating an Annex. The documents are easily accessible. Please let me know if I missed anything. Grace From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:50 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Marika, ...or, if those documents are easy to access, then we can just include a reference and not worry about an annex. Works for me either way. I will defer to Becky on this one. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 5:00 pm, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: In relation to item 2, I believe the reference is to the following documents: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20Function%20... and https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20SOW%20Summa... , which were provided by Becky at the start of the DT's deliberations which are also posted on the DT wiki page (https://community.icann.org/x/CLjhAg). One is a function summary and the other one a statement of work summary. If this is indeed correct, we can include both documents in the annex to the charter. Best regards, Marika From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday 13 August 2014 00:34 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Grace and good morning everyone, I've had a final look through the document and all the emails that have come in overnight. I agree with the change of title proposed by Allan, I am happy with the revised wording covering consensus, and also happy with all the other proposed edits with a couple of small suggestions in the section titled 'Scope'. 1. The words that Grace captured in our teleconference regarding scope exclusions currently read: For greater certainty, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. I find the phrase 'For greater certainty' a little awkward. As this sentence follows another sentence about an exclusion, can I suggest we change this phrase to simply 'Additionally'? This would then read: The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. Additionally, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. 2. I also note that the second sentence under the heading 'Scope' states: The Annex to this Charter contains a summary and description of the IANA functions drawn from the NTIA's statement of work for that IANA contract. That Annex still needs to be added or the reference to it removed. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 4:00 am, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we are 6h away from our final edits deadline. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:59 PM To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Draft Charter -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!) Hi all, Attached are two versions of the updated draft charter (redline and clean). I used Stephanie's "minor edits" document as the base for the rest of the proposed changes. I've outlined the changes I made for your reference: * Section II: Included Julie's text (first sentence of "Goals & Objectives" section) * Section III: Deleted everything except for the first sentence in point 2 of the work plan, upon Chuck's suggestion. * Section IV: * Included Stephanie's text. * Completed text relating to staff assignment in "Staffing & Resources" (Grace/Staff). * Included Allan's text on resourcing (can the DT confirm the placement of the text in the charter?). Note: I am missing text from Byron, but I left the text discussed on the call as a placeholder. Final edits are due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!). Please let me know if you would like to schedule a final call. - Grace _______________________________________________ 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
It has been a great team to work with. Chuck From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Allan MacGillivray Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:47 AM To: Grace Abuhamad; Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter I think that this is an excellent product. Milton Mueller has even characterized it as being 'impressive'<http://www.internetgovernance.org/>. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it. Allan From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad Sent: August-13-14 10:16 AM To: Julie Hammer; Marika Konings Cc: CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Hi all, Attached is the final version of the draft charter. I've included the name change requested by Allan and the edits by Julie. I linked to the 3 documents that Becky circulated instead of creating an Annex. The documents are easily accessible. Please let me know if I missed anything. Grace From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:50 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Marika, ...or, if those documents are easy to access, then we can just include a reference and not worry about an annex. Works for me either way. I will defer to Becky on this one. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 5:00 pm, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: In relation to item 2, I believe the reference is to the following documents: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20Function%20... and https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/IANA%20SOW%20Summa... , which were provided by Becky at the start of the DT's deliberations which are also posted on the DT wiki page (https://community.icann.org/x/CLjhAg). One is a function summary and the other one a statement of work summary. If this is indeed correct, we can include both documents in the annex to the charter. Best regards, Marika From: Julie Hammer <julie.hammer@bigpond.com<mailto:julie.hammer@bigpond.com>> Date: Wednesday 13 August 2014 00:34 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Cc: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] 6 hours left -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August Hi Grace and good morning everyone, I've had a final look through the document and all the emails that have come in overnight. I agree with the change of title proposed by Allan, I am happy with the revised wording covering consensus, and also happy with all the other proposed edits with a couple of small suggestions in the section titled 'Scope'. 1. The words that Grace captured in our teleconference regarding scope exclusions currently read: For greater certainty, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. I find the phrase 'For greater certainty' a little awkward. As this sentence follows another sentence about an exclusion, can I suggest we change this phrase to simply 'Additionally'? This would then read: The issue of who performs the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM) role is not in scope for the CWG and should be dealt with in a subsequent effort as needed. Additionally, issues related to naming policy e.g. delegation, redelegation or revocation of ccTLDs, RAA related policy issues etc. are not within the scope of the CWG. 2. I also note that the second sentence under the heading 'Scope' states: The Annex to this Charter contains a summary and description of the IANA functions drawn from the NTIA's statement of work for that IANA contract. That Annex still needs to be added or the reference to it removed. Cheers, Julie On 13 Aug 2014, at 4:00 am, Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick reminder that we are 6h away from our final edits deadline. From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:59 PM To: "CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>" <CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Latest Draft Charter -- Final Edits due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!) Hi all, Attached are two versions of the updated draft charter (redline and clean). I used Stephanie's "minor edits" document as the base for the rest of the proposed changes. I've outlined the changes I made for your reference: * Section II: Included Julie's text (first sentence of "Goals & Objectives" section) * Section III: Deleted everything except for the first sentence in point 2 of the work plan, upon Chuck's suggestion. * Section IV: * Included Stephanie's text. * Completed text relating to staff assignment in "Staffing & Resources" (Grace/Staff). * Included Allan's text on resourcing (can the DT confirm the placement of the text in the charter?). Note: I am missing text from Byron, but I left the text discussed on the call as a placeholder. Final edits are due at 23:59 UTC on 12 August (in 22 hours!). Please let me know if you would like to schedule a final call. - Grace _______________________________________________ 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
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
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> 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
I agree with Julie. The two sentences in our paragraph can be seen as saying different things, maybe even contradictory, so suggestions for fixing that in the comments we get back from SOs and ACs would be fine, including language more along the lines of the ICG. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
I am OK with these changes. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Byron Holland Sent: 14 August 2014 17:15 To: Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Replacing the first sentence with the new wording looks fine to me but I would have liked to have retained the last sentence to make sure there is no question about accountability being in scope: "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group." Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Byron Holland Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:15 PM To: Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
i agree with this. avri On 14-Aug-14 12:26, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Replacing the first sentence with the new wording looks fine to me but I would have liked to have retained the last sentence to make sure there is no question about accountability being in scope: "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group."
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Byron Holland Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:15 PM To: Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
I also agree with Chuck to retain the last sentence. Cheers, Julie On 15 Aug 2014, at 2:36 am, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: i agree with this. avri On 14-Aug-14 12:26, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Replacing the first sentence with the new wording looks fine to me but I would have liked to have retained the last sentence to make sure there is no question about accountability being in scope: "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group."
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Byron Holland Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:15 PM To: Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Hi, So, in the end, at what version of the wording did the charter anneal? Would like to pass it on to the SG. Hope Chuck's intervention made it in time. Thanks avri On 14-Aug-14 12:15, Byron Holland 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
I have no objection if it did. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 14 August 2014 21:49 To: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Hi, So, in the end, at what version of the wording did the charter anneal? Would like to pass it on to the SG. Hope Chuck's intervention made it in time. Thanks avri On 14-Aug-14 12:15, Byron Holland 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Why it is crucial to have the same wording as the ICG one??? We agreed on a charter after several iterations of drafting and update. We fixed a deadline for last last update, and this deadline is passed. The final document had the full consensus of the drafting team. There is no reason we modify it. If we continue like that, we will never finish modifying our charter. So, my inclination is to keep the already agreed text without modification. Tijani -----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 14 août 2014 17:15 À : Julie Hammer; Avri Doria Cc : cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Objet : Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
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> 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Hi, This works for me. Thanks avri On 18-Aug-14 11:27, Marika Konings wrote:
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> 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Thanks, Marika. I have asked for this updated version to be the one circulated to SSAC for endorsement. Cheers, Julie On 19 Aug 2014, at 2:09 am, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi, This works for me. Thanks avri On 18-Aug-14 11:27, Marika Konings wrote:
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> 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
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 representatives 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 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> 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Dear Byron, The SSAC Chair, Patrik Fältström, has agreed that the SSAC may deal with this document 'out of session'. The version of the Draft Charter that I circulated to the SSAC for endorsement was indeed the one with the sentence reinstated. I had circulated earlier versions of this Draft Charter to the full SSAC Membership on two different occasions during its development and all comments provided have been addressed in this final draft version. I have asked for any objections to be lodged by 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 26th August. Should there be no objections, I will request that Patrik advise you formally the following day that the Draft Charter has been approved by the SSAC. Cheers, Julie On 22 Aug 2014, at 7:25 am, Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca> wrote: 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 representatives 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 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> 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
Hi, That is great news. Thanks avri On 21-Aug-14 17:25, Byron Holland wrote:
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 representa! tives 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 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> 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] 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 <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
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] 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" <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] 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 <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 --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
participants (9)
-
Allan MacGillivray -
Avri Doria -
Byron Holland -
Gomes, Chuck -
Grace Abuhamad -
Jonathan Robinson -
Julie Hammer -
Marika Konings -
Tijani BEN JEMAA