FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also. -James From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear James, Thank you No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list. We need to hear from each other and listen to each other. This is apparently a Multistakeholder process. Regards Kavouss See Below 2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred. -james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Co-Chairs Dear CCWG Colleagues, Thank you very much for your kind message. I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016. In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER, Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions. While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal. That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be Seen and approved by the entire CCWG Published for public comments Approved by Chattering Organizations Approved by ICANN Board After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD. ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS Regards KAVOUSS 2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>>: Dear Mathiew, The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ? -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr<mailto:weill@afnic.fr>] Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 À : 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>; 'Katrina Sataki' Cc : 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' Objet : Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chartering Organizations, We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2. Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report. To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period. It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by 20 April, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by 27 May. Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to: · Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws · Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship · Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2) You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward. We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary. Thank you, Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also. -James From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear James, Thank you No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list. We need to hear from each other and listen to each other. This is apparently a Multistakeholder process. Regards Kavouss See Below 2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred. -james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Co-Chairs Dear CCWG Colleagues, Thank you very much for your kind message. I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016. In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER, Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions. While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal. That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be Seen and approved by the entire CCWG Published for public comments Approved by Chattering Organizations Approved by ICANN Board After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD. ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS Regards KAVOUSS 2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>>: Dear Mathiew, The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ? -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr<mailto:weill@afnic.fr>] Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 À : 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>; 'Katrina Sataki' Cc : 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' Objet : Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chartering Organizations, We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2. Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report. To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period. It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by 20 April, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by 27 May. Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to: · Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws · Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship · Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2) You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward. We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary. Thank you, Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Chuck Kavouss is not aware of what the team had approved and what ICANN approved . These are the preliminary steps. ,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!??? I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing? Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board.
Chuck
From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also.
-James
From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> Cc: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear James, Thank you No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list. We need to hear from each other and listen to each other. This is apparently a Multistakeholder process. Regards Kavouss See Below
2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>: Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred.
-james
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Co-Chairs Dear CCWG Colleagues, Thank you very much for your kind message. I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016. In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER, Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions. While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal. That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be Seen and approved by the entire CCWG Published for public comments Approved by Chattering Organizations Approved by ICANN Board After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD. ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS Regards KAVOUSS
2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com>: Dear Mathiew,
The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ?
-- Sivasubramanian M
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote: Dear Colleagues,
Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role.
Best Mathieu
De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 À : 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net; 'Katrina Sataki' Cc : 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' Objet : Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Chartering Organizations,
We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2.
Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report.
To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period.
It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by 20 April, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by 27 May.
Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to: · Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws
· Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship
· Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2)
You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward.
We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary.
Thank you,
Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Kavouss, Part of the ICANN bylaws drafting is related to the requests from the IANA Stewardship group. The budget related bylaws also includes parts related to CWG Stewardship requests. DTO which requested the 3 year secured funding of PTI is a part of the CWG. We discussed at our last CWG call Thursday 31.3.2016 the DTO request and it was supported by CWG. Furthermore it has been sent to the CWG list for comments with a deadline tomorrow 0800 UTC. I find that the process is being carried out in a transparent and accountable manner. Best regards, Lise Fuhr Co-chair CWG On 03 Apr 2016, at 17:02, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Chuck Kavouss is not aware of what the team had approved and what ICANN approved . These are the preliminary steps. ,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!??? I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing? Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also. -James From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear James, Thank you No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list. We need to hear from each other and listen to each other. This is apparently a Multistakeholder process. Regards Kavouss See Below 2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred. -james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Co-Chairs Dear CCWG Colleagues, Thank you very much for your kind message. I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016. In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER, Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions. While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal. That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be Seen and approved by the entire CCWG Published for public comments Approved by Chattering Organizations Approved by ICANN Board After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD. ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS Regards KAVOUSS 2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>>: Dear Mathiew, The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ? -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr<mailto:weill@afnic.fr>] Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 À : 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>; 'Katrina Sataki' Cc : 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' Objet : Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chartering Organizations, We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2. Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report. To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period. It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by 20 April, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by 27 May. Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to: · Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws · Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship · Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2) You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward. We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary. Thank you, Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Dear Lise Thank you very much for the answer. You are the only one from those to whom message this afternoon who replied. I have not seen any text relevant to " reserved Budget " *" I find that the process is being carried out in a transparent and accountable manner*." I have only seen paragraphe 24 of the questions raised for Bylaws . I am not in agreement to define a three years blocked budget Regards Kavouss
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 6:22 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not in agreement to define a three years blocked budget
SO: Kavous, the act of defining a multi-year budget for PTI is an implementation item from the CWG proposal. Considering that the proposal has already been forwarded to NTIA, i believe you will agree that we have passed the stage of modifying what was proposed. Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Seun Thanks for reply You are rushing into conclusions ENVISAGING A MULTI YEAR BUDGET IS ENTIRELY diffrent is blocking a three years Budget for PTI Regards Kavouss 2016-04-03 20:59 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 6:22 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not in agreement to define a three years blocked budget
SO: Kavous, the act of defining a multi-year budget for PTI is an implementation item from the CWG proposal. Considering that the proposal has already been forwarded to NTIA, i believe you will agree that we have passed the stage of modifying what was proposed.
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Kavouss this issue has been debated at length by Design Team O. I suggest you reach out to the design team to gain a better understanding of the CWGs path that has led to this requirement to get a full picture. -james From: <cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday 3 April 2016 at 10:02 p.m. To: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> Cc: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Seun Thanks for reply You are rushing into conclusions ENVISAGING A MULTI YEAR BUDGET IS ENTIRELY diffrent is blocking a three years Budget for PTI Regards Kavouss 2016-04-03 20:59 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>>: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 6:22 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote:
I am not in agreement to define a three years blocked budget
SO: Kavous, the act of defining a multi-year budget for PTI is an implementation item from the CWG proposal. Considering that the proposal has already been forwarded to NTIA, i believe you will agree that we have passed the stage of modifying what was proposed. Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Do you mind explaining the difference Kavous? perhaps I missed something. I sure don't intend to "rush into conclusion" and will be good to know which part of my statement implies that. Thanks Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 22:02, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Seun Thanks for reply You are rushing into conclusions ENVISAGING A MULTI YEAR BUDGET IS ENTIRELY diffrent is blocking a three years Budget for PTI Regards Kavouss
2016-04-03 20:59 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 3 Apr 2016 6:22 p.m., "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
I am not in agreement to define a three years blocked budget
SO: Kavous, the act of defining a multi-year budget for PTI is an implementation item from the CWG proposal. Considering that the proposal has already been forwarded to NTIA, i believe you will agree that we have passed the stage of modifying what was proposed.
Regards
Kavouss
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Kavouss, The approval of the CWG Stewardship recommendations by the ICANN Board was not done in private. I assume you know that. Chuck From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:01 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chuck Kavouss is not aware of what the team had approved and what ICANN approved . These are the preliminary steps. ,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!??? I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing? Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also. -James From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear James, Thank you No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list. We need to hear from each other and listen to each other. This is apparently a Multistakeholder process. Regards Kavouss See Below 2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred. -james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Co-Chairs Dear CCWG Colleagues, Thank you very much for your kind message. I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016. In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER, Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions. While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal. That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be Seen and approved by the entire CCWG Published for public comments Approved by Chattering Organizations Approved by ICANN Board After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD. ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS Regards KAVOUSS 2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>>: Dear Mathiew, The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ? -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr<mailto:weill@afnic.fr>] Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 À : 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>; 'Katrina Sataki' Cc : 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' Objet : Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chartering Organizations, We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2. Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report. To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period. It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by 20 April, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by 27 May. Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to: · Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws · Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship · Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2) You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward. We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary. Thank you, Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All Please direct me to the Board’s Resolutions and the date of its approval in which the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of IANA function budget for circumstances which there could be a probable financial crisis in ICANN. Regards Kavouss , 2016-04-04 15:42 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Kavouss,
The approval of the CWG Stewardship recommendations by the ICANN Board was not done in private. I assume you know that.
Chuck
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:01 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Chuck
Kavouss is not aware of what the team had approved and what ICANN approved .
These are the preliminary steps.
,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!???
I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing?
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board.
Chuck
*From:* James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>] *Sent:* Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr *Subject:* FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also.
-James
*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. *To: *James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> *Cc: *Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear James,
Thank you
No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG
Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list.
We need to hear from each other and listen to each other.
This is apparently a Multistakeholder process.
Regards
Kavouss
See Below
2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred.
-james
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. *To: *Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Cc: *CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Co-Chairs
Dear CCWG Colleagues,
Thank you very much for your kind message.
I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016.
In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER,
Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions.
While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows
CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal.
That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval
Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be
Seen and approved by the entire CCWG
Published for public comments
Approved by Chattering Organizations
Approved by ICANN Board
After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws
Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD.
ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS
Regards
KAVOUSS
2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com>:
Dear Mathiew,
The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ?
--
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] *Envoyé :* vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 *À :* 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net; 'Katrina Sataki' *Cc :* 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' *Objet :* Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Chartering Organizations,
We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2.
Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report.
To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period.
It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by *20 April*, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by *27 May*.
Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to:
· Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws
· Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship
· Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2)
You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward.
We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary.
Thank you,
Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kavous, No one has ever said that the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of the IANA functions budget. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The issue of continuity of PTI funding is still being worked as an implementation issue. CWG Design Team O is working on possible ways to ensure stability of PTI funding beyond one fiscal year. DT-O proposed and the CWG Stewardship approved the following financial objectives for PTI: “The financial objectives of PTI are to provide financial stability and operational excellence. Financial stability is defined as sufficient funding of PTI so as to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA Functions as a result of changes to ICANN’s financial situation. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for PTI that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence means that there are sufficient funds budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services.” Chuck From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:24 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear All Please direct me to the Board’s Resolutions and the date of its approval in which the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of IANA function budget for circumstances which there could be a probable financial crisis in ICANN. Regards Kavouss , 2016-04-04 15:42 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>: Kavouss, The approval of the CWG Stewardship recommendations by the ICANN Board was not done in private. I assume you know that. Chuck From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:01 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chuck Kavouss is not aware of what the team had approved and what ICANN approved . These are the preliminary steps. ,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!??? I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing? Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also. -James From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear James, Thank you No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list. We need to hear from each other and listen to each other. This is apparently a Multistakeholder process. Regards Kavouss See Below 2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred. -james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Co-Chairs Dear CCWG Colleagues, Thank you very much for your kind message. I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016. In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER, Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions. While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal. That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be Seen and approved by the entire CCWG Published for public comments Approved by Chattering Organizations Approved by ICANN Board After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD. ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS Regards KAVOUSS 2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>>: Dear Mathiew, The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ? -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr<mailto:weill@afnic.fr>] Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 À : 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>; 'Katrina Sataki' Cc : 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' Objet : Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chartering Organizations, We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2. Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report. To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period. It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by 20 April, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by 27 May. Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to: · Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws · Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship · Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2) You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward. We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary. Thank you, Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kavous, I should add one more point, one that I think Lise already made. DT-O recommended that a clause be added into the Bylaws that funding of PTI be ensured beyond one fiscal year. The CWG Stewardship also supported this recommendation. I do not know what the status of this recommendation is as far as the Bylaws drafting is concerned. Chuck From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:34 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Kavous, No one has ever said that the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of the IANA functions budget. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The issue of continuity of PTI funding is still being worked as an implementation issue. CWG Design Team O is working on possible ways to ensure stability of PTI funding beyond one fiscal year. DT-O proposed and the CWG Stewardship approved the following financial objectives for PTI: “The financial objectives of PTI are to provide financial stability and operational excellence. Financial stability is defined as sufficient funding of PTI so as to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA Functions as a result of changes to ICANN’s financial situation. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for PTI that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence means that there are sufficient funds budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services.” Chuck From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:24 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear All Please direct me to the Board’s Resolutions and the date of its approval in which the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of IANA function budget for circumstances which there could be a probable financial crisis in ICANN. Regards Kavouss , 2016-04-04 15:42 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>: Kavouss, The approval of the CWG Stewardship recommendations by the ICANN Board was not done in private. I assume you know that. Chuck From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:01 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chuck Kavouss is not aware of what the team had approved and what ICANN approved . These are the preliminary steps. ,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!??? I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing? Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also. -James From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear James, Thank you No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list. We need to hear from each other and listen to each other. This is apparently a Multistakeholder process. Regards Kavouss See Below 2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred. -james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Co-Chairs Dear CCWG Colleagues, Thank you very much for your kind message. I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016. In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER, Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions. While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal. That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be Seen and approved by the entire CCWG Published for public comments Approved by Chattering Organizations Approved by ICANN Board After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD. ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS Regards KAVOUSS 2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>>: Dear Mathiew, The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ? -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr<mailto:weill@afnic.fr>] Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 À : 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>; 'Katrina Sataki' Cc : 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' Objet : Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chartering Organizations, We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2. Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report. To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period. It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by 20 April, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by 27 May. Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to: · Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws · Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship · Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2) You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward. We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary. Thank you, Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Gomes Dear Chuck I have no problem to discuss this issue. Pls look at Sidely Draft 30March paragraph 2 in which the issue of blocking 20 Million Dollars is referred. I am supportive of a general /high level legal text in the Bylaws indicate that "*there should sufficient fund **budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services*.” without referring to an specific amount Regards Kavouss 2016-04-04 16:34 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Kavous,
No one has ever said that the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of the IANA functions budget. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
The issue of continuity of PTI funding is still being worked as an implementation issue. CWG Design Team O is working on possible ways to ensure stability of PTI funding beyond one fiscal year. DT-O proposed and the CWG Stewardship approved the following financial objectives for PTI:
“The financial objectives of PTI are to provide financial stability and operational excellence. Financial stability is defined as sufficient funding of PTI so as to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA Functions as a result of changes to ICANN’s financial situation. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for PTI that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence means that there are sufficient funds budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services.”
Chuck
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, April 04, 2016 10:24 AM
*To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear All
Please direct me to the Board’s Resolutions and the date of its approval in which the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of IANA function budget for circumstances which there could be a probable financial crisis in ICANN.
Regards
Kavouss ,
2016-04-04 15:42 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Kavouss,
The approval of the CWG Stewardship recommendations by the ICANN Board was not done in private. I assume you know that.
Chuck
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:01 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Chuck
Kavouss is not aware of what the team had approved and what ICANN approved .
These are the preliminary steps.
,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!???
I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing?
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board.
Chuck
*From:* James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>] *Sent:* Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr *Subject:* FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also.
-James
*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. *To: *James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> *Cc: *Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear James,
Thank you
No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG
Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list.
We need to hear from each other and listen to each other.
This is apparently a Multistakeholder process.
Regards
Kavouss
See Below
2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred.
-james
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. *To: *Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Cc: *CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Co-Chairs
Dear CCWG Colleagues,
Thank you very much for your kind message.
I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016.
In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER,
Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions.
While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows
CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal.
That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval
Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be
Seen and approved by the entire CCWG
Published for public comments
Approved by Chattering Organizations
Approved by ICANN Board
After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws
Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD.
ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS
Regards
KAVOUSS
2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com>:
Dear Mathiew,
The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ?
--
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] *Envoyé :* vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 *À :* 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net; 'Katrina Sataki' *Cc :* 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' *Objet :* Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Chartering Organizations,
We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2.
Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report.
To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period.
It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by *20 April*, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by *27 May*.
Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to:
· Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws
· Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship
· Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2)
You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward.
We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary.
Thank you,
Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks Kavouss. Chuck From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:57 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Gomes Dear Chuck I have no problem to discuss this issue. Pls look at Sidely Draft 30March paragraph 2 in which the issue of blocking 20 Million Dollars is referred. I am supportive of a general /high level legal text in the Bylaws indicate that "there should sufficient fund budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services.” without referring to an specific amount Regards Kavouss 2016-04-04 16:34 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>: Kavous, No one has ever said that the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of the IANA functions budget. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. The issue of continuity of PTI funding is still being worked as an implementation issue. CWG Design Team O is working on possible ways to ensure stability of PTI funding beyond one fiscal year. DT-O proposed and the CWG Stewardship approved the following financial objectives for PTI: “The financial objectives of PTI are to provide financial stability and operational excellence. Financial stability is defined as sufficient funding of PTI so as to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA Functions as a result of changes to ICANN’s financial situation. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for PTI that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence means that there are sufficient funds budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services.” Chuck From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:24 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear All Please direct me to the Board’s Resolutions and the date of its approval in which the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of IANA function budget for circumstances which there could be a probable financial crisis in ICANN. Regards Kavouss , 2016-04-04 15:42 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>: Kavouss, The approval of the CWG Stewardship recommendations by the ICANN Board was not done in private. I assume you know that. Chuck From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:01 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chuck Kavouss is not aware of what the team had approved and what ICANN approved . These are the preliminary steps. ,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!??? I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing? Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board. Chuck From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship@icann.org> Cc: Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also. -James From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. To: James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>> Cc: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear James, Thank you No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list. We need to hear from each other and listen to each other. This is apparently a Multistakeholder process. Regards Kavouss See Below 2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net>>: Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred. -james From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr<mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>>, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de<mailto:rickert@anwaelte.de>>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx<mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>> Cc: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Co-Chairs Dear CCWG Colleagues, Thank you very much for your kind message. I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016. In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER, Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions. While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal. That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be Seen and approved by the entire CCWG Published for public comments Approved by Chattering Organizations Approved by ICANN Board After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD. ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS Regards KAVOUSS 2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com<mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com>>: Dear Mathiew, The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ? -- Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role. Best Mathieu De : Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr<mailto:weill@afnic.fr>] Envoyé : vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 À : 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net<mailto:oscar@lacnic.net>; 'Katrina Sataki' Cc : 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' Objet : Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability Dear Chartering Organizations, We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2. Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report. To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period. It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by 20 April, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by 27 May. Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to: · Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws · Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship · Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2) You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward. We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary. Thank you, Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Chuck I have no problem with what you describing. I am not in favour of putting a text in the Bylaws which require to block an equivalent amount of three years PTI budget.$ as there is no logic nor rational behind neither the amount nor blocking any credit Regards Kavouss 2016-04-04 16:57 GMT+02:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear Gomes Dear Chuck I have no problem to discuss this issue. Pls look at Sidely Draft 30March paragraph 2 in which the issue of blocking 20 Million Dollars is referred. I am supportive of a general /high level legal text in the Bylaws indicate that "*there should sufficient fund **budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services*.” without referring to an specific amount Regards Kavouss
2016-04-04 16:34 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Kavous,
No one has ever said that the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of the IANA functions budget. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
The issue of continuity of PTI funding is still being worked as an implementation issue. CWG Design Team O is working on possible ways to ensure stability of PTI funding beyond one fiscal year. DT-O proposed and the CWG Stewardship approved the following financial objectives for PTI:
“The financial objectives of PTI are to provide financial stability and operational excellence. Financial stability is defined as sufficient funding of PTI so as to avoid any kind of negative impact on the IANA Functions as a result of changes to ICANN’s financial situation. It furthermore is intended to capture the notion of secured funding for PTI that goes beyond one fiscal year. The objective of operational excellence means that there are sufficient funds budgeted and available to ensure that PTI is able to deliver operational excellence as defined by Service Level Expectations/Service Level Agreements approved by each of the three operational communities for their respective IANA services.”
Chuck
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, April 04, 2016 10:24 AM
*To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear All
Please direct me to the Board’s Resolutions and the date of its approval in which the Board agreed to block equivalent to 3 years of IANA function budget for circumstances which there could be a probable financial crisis in ICANN.
Regards
Kavouss ,
2016-04-04 15:42 GMT+02:00 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>:
Kavouss,
The approval of the CWG Stewardship recommendations by the ICANN Board was not done in private. I assume you know that.
Chuck
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, April 03, 2016 11:01 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck *Cc:* James Gannon; cwg-stewardship@icann.org; Cheryl Langdon-Orr
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Chuck
Kavouss is not aware of what the team had approved and what ICANN approved .
These are the preliminary steps.
,if any approval was made in private by private sector !!!???
I am not aware that the team has formally approved any thing?
Regards
Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Apr 2016, at 21:34, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
I get the impression that Kavouss is not aware that the Bylaws drafting team that met in L.A. last week worked on Bylaws changes related to CWG Stewardship recommendations as well as CCWG Accountability recommendations, both of which were approved by the ICANN Board.
Chuck
*From:* James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net <james@cyberinvasion.net>] *Sent:* Friday, April 01, 2016 12:24 PM *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Cc:* Kavouss Arasteh; Gomes, Chuck; Cheryl Langdon-Orr *Subject:* FW: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Forwarding as requested. Copying DT-O leadership also.
-James
*From: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:59 p.m. *To: *James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> *Cc: *Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear James,
Thank you
No problem then I will copy my message to you as I am not in the mailing list of CWG
Then I leave it to you to kindly forward my message to CWG QUOTING MY REQUEST for inclusion in the mailing list and participant list.
We need to hear from each other and listen to each other.
This is apparently a Multistakeholder process.
Regards
Kavouss
See Below
2016-04-01 16:46 GMT+02:00 James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>:
Im sorry Kavouss but the CCWG is not the place to debate the specifics of the IANA budget issues, the CWG and in particular Design Team O has been working tirelessly on this issue and have made their recommendations, as you know there are bylaws resulting out of not just CCWG work but also CWG work and I don’t really want to get the lines of responsibility for those two blurred.
-james
*From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday 1 April 2016 at 3:36 p.m. *To: *Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert < rickert@anwaelte.de>, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> *Cc: *CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] TR: Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Co-Chairs
Dear CCWG Colleagues,
Thank you very much for your kind message.
I wish to remind you and the Lawyers that the Mission of Working Group to prepare ICANN revised Bylaws is merely and solely limited and restricted to translate the relevant parts of the CCWG Supplemental Proposal dated 23 February as approved by chattering organizations and then by ICANN Board and communicated to NTIA on 11 March 2016.
In other words, those text appeared in that Report need to be translated into legal text with full authenticity and without ANY CHANGES WHAT SO EVER,
Surprisingly, I have seen text distributed by Lawyers quoting new requirements e.g. from CWG for an equivalent amount of 3 years IANA budget as reserved budget for the implementation of PTI functions.
While I do not have any difficulties to envisage a rescue budget for any rare and eventual circumstances that IANA financial resource face difficulties I have one basis and fundamental difficulties as follows
CCWG has worked hardly during 14 months and gone through a very through analysis of all TEXTS WITHOUT ANY Exception and also gone through three public comments process and one supplemental process to finalize its proposal.
That Proposal went through the approval process of Chartering Organizations and ICANN Board’s approval
Consequently, any issue, no matter whether or not is relevant must be
Seen and approved by the entire CCWG
Published for public comments
Approved by Chattering Organizations
Approved by ICANN Board
After the above-mentioned 5 steps are completed then relevant text may be included in the Draft Bylaws
Having said that, I have no problem to raise the issues discussed by CWG in this regard and attaching their wishes to a CCWG Note TO BE SENT TO ICANN BOARD.
ICANN Board could review the matter and make necessary provisions in their operational procedure such as opening a credit line labelled “IANA Budget Reserve” fed by ICANN with and annual equivalent amount of up to x% (NOT MORE THAN 10 5) in an accumulated manner to provide a rescue circumstances. However, this is an operational issue within the remit of the ICANN and has nothing to do with BYLAWS
Regards
KAVOUSS
2016-04-01 15:38 GMT+02:00 Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com>:
Dear Mathiew,
The call is for new "participants" for the Implementation Team and WS2. This is not a call for Members of WS2 ?
--
Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is a communication to the Chartering Organizations, sent a few minutes ago, confirming that we are proceeding with an implementation oversight role.
Best
Mathieu
*De :* Mathieu Weill [mailto:weill@afnic.fr] *Envoyé :* vendredi 1 avril 2016 12:38 *À :* 'James M. Bladel'; '‘Thomas Schneider''; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Patrik Fältström'; 'Louie Lee'; oscar@lacnic.net; 'Katrina Sataki' *Cc :* 'Akram Atallah'; 'David Olive'; 'Steve Crocker'; 'Thomas Rickert'; 'gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org'; 'Tom Dale'; 'ACCT-Staff'; 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'Bart Boswinkel'; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía'; 'Jonathan Robinson'; 'Kimberly Carlson'; 'Olof Nordling'; 'Julie Hedlund'; 'Julia Charvolen'; 'Lise Fuhr'; 'Theresa Swinehart'; 'Carlos Reyes' *Objet :* Re: Implementation and Work Stream 2 role for CCWG-Accountability
Dear Chartering Organizations,
We are writing to you to follow up on our email from 6 March (available here <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2016-March/0116...>), and provide an update on the Work Stream 1 implementation oversight and scoping for Work Stream 2.
Hearing no objections from the Chartering Organizations, we have proceeded with an implementation oversight role to ensure that the implementation is consistent with the Work Stream 1 report.
To date, this work has been focused on the drafting of Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. There is a critical path for the Bylaws drafting, and along with the CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, we have instructed our legal teams to work with ICANN to draft the Bylaws. It is expected that a final draft of the proposed revisions to the Bylaws would be available for CCWG review by 2 April at the latest. The CCWG has two calls scheduled to facilitate its review of the Bylaws. Following CCWG review, the Bylaws would be published for an open community-wide public comment period.
It is important to remember that the overall transition schedule depends on completing this work. In order for the transition to take place by the end of the current contract between NTIA and ICANN on 30 September, ICANN must publish the Bylaws for a 30-day public comment period by *20 April*, and the Board would need to approve the changes to the Bylaws by *27 May*.
Once the Bylaws work is complete, we will turn our focus to:
· Completing the work on IRP that goes beyond the Bylaws
· Finalizing the budget process in coordination with the CWG-Stewardship
· Undertaking Work Stream 2 (WS2)
You may have seen a call for WS2 volunteers on the ICANN website last week (available here <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-03-25-en>). We ask that you also share this call for volunteers widely to ensure that all interested parties, including those outside of the ICANN ecosystem, are aware that they are welcome to participate in projects of WS2. It is important for our group to continue to strive for maximized diversity of our participants going forward.
We would like to emphasize that the CCWG-Accountability will remain open to anyone who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed individuals with relevant implementation and operational experience to join the CCWG-Accountability in this next phase. Finally, we are conscious of the heavy workload the CCWG-Accountability has been for your appointed members, and we would like to ask once more for Chartering Organizations to re-confirm member participation, and appoint new replacement members if necessary.
Thank you,
Leon Sanchez, Thomas Rickert, and Mathieu Weill
CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
James Gannon -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lise Fuhr -
Seun Ojedeji