Please see my personal responses to two of the four items below. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 2:19 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] CWG expectations from CCWG Dear All, Here is an email from the CCWG-chairs regarding clarification around the four areas that is to be considered by the CCWG. Please have those questions in mind when we are discussing issues related to the CCWG. Best regards, Jonathan and Lise -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sendt: 13. april 2015 13:40 Til: 'Lise Fuhr'; Jonathan Robinson Cc: Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Emne: CWG expectations from CCWG Dear Lise and Jonathan, Thanks for giving us the opportunity to present an update of the CCWG at the beginning of your intense work days. You mentioned 4 items of input, upon which I would ask a few clarifying questions : * ICANN budget (in particular, the requirement for transparency around cost allocation in relation to the IANA functions) My understanding is that this requirement would be to enforce the possibility to reject a budget from Icann which would not present the appropriate level of transparency around cost allocation in relations to the IANA funnctions. I also understand that the "transparency requirements" would be provided by CWG (budget DT). Is that correct ? [Chuck Gomes] Regarding the second sentence, DT-O already provided the transparency requirements and those will be illustrated by the analysis of the FY15 draft budget IANA costs. * Community empowerment mechanisms (in particular, relating to a confidence vote option) Is the "confidence vote" related to the recall of the whole Board in case of dramatic loss of confidence ? * Review and redress mechanisms (in particular, relating to a 'fundamental bylaw' mechanism) I must admit I am not very clear what is currently expected through this item, and its relationship with the fundamental bylaw. Maybe some examples / use cases would help. * Appeal mechanisms (especially with regard to ccTLD related issues) My understanding is that this item will fade away following the latest recommendations from within your group, which point towards deferring this item to further work from the ccNSO ? [Chuck Gomes] It will only fade away for ccTLDs. I hope by clarifying these items we can achieve greater clarity and provide assurance to our groups about the interrelation of our work. Best Mathieu -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship