Thanks Jonathan. Chuck Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> Date:01/15/2015 5:07 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>, cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Conditional Accountability Requirements Thanks Chuck, I agree that it needs to be expressed as clearly as possible to be useful for the CCWG. My General category was not meant to be a category as such but rather something we will depend on regardless of the variants. In any event, I do not feel strongly about how we sort this as long as we articulate our dependencies as clearly as possible. Which I understand to be also your intention. Jonathan From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: 15 January 2015 19:56 To: jrobinson@afilias.info; cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Conditional Accountability Requirements Jonathan, Obtaining input on A-F as you suggest is probably a very good idea for getting people thinking on this and for the CWG to make sure we include everything we need. But I don’t think breaking down our input according to the three categories will be a useful way to present our needs to the CCWG. This became more obvious to me when I reviewed and commented on the first version that Avri put into the Google Doc. For example, I found that the need for a binding independent appeals panel is common to all three areas, but is just one requirement for the CCWG that we are dependent on. Also, the CCWG probably doesn’t need to know what area or areas of our work cause the dependencies assuming that we can clearly articulate them. I understand that you may have not intended that the categorization be a part of our presentation to the CCWG but I wanted to point this out just to make sure. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:48 AM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Conditional Accountability Requirements All, I recall from the weekend sessions that we agreed to work on the “Conditional Accountability” requirements to be developed as part of the CWG proposal. And moreover, to the extent that it was possible, to formulate these in such a way as to guide the work (on work stream 1) of the CCWG next week. I believe Alan Greenberg was going to hold the pen on this but have not seen anything on list so will make a contribution here to be synthesised with anything Alan has led or developed. It seems to me that we have three categories as follows: 1. General i.e. work that will be done by the CCWG and on which the CWG will rely on regardless of the variant proposal it produces.
From previous correspondence with the CCWG, we know that they have identified the following areas:
o Independent Review of Board Actions o Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation o Independent Appeals Panel 2. Relating to RFP 3a – A (potentially) limited set of requirements given the strength of recourse associated with 3a o A o B o C 3. Relating to RFP 3b – A (potentially) more extensive list of requirements given the likely integrated nature of the outcome from this group o D o E o F Now, clearly the key question is formulating the bullet points A-F under 3a and 3 b above and deciding whether 3a is a subset of 3b or whether there are unique conditions associated with 3a. It will be very helpful to have clear input on A–F above in a form that we can transmit to the CCWG ahead of their meetings next week. Thank-you Jonathan