Interlinking and dependency between CWG-Stewardship & CCWG-Accountability
All, A critical area that needs our attention is the interlinking and dependency between the work of this group i.e. the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the related Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). Please see attached for a document (copied into the body of the email below) to get this discussion moving. Thank-you, Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr Co-chairs -- Potential areas for interlinking and dependency between work of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Date: 10 December 2014 From: CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr. The linkage between the work of the CWG-Stewardship and the enhanced accountability of ICANN has been recognised in a number of ways, including explicitly by the CCWG-Accountability itself. Indeed, Work Stream 1 of the CCWG-Accountability will focus on the mechanisms for enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition. In an initial conversation between us (the co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship) and the co-chairs of the <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter+and+Drafting+Team
Drafting Team for the CCWG-Accountability it was clear that input from the CWG-Stewardship on matters for Work Stream 1 would be helpful. This document aims to define those matters (derived from the draft transition proposal) and to seek input from the CWG-Stewardship on these.
The CWG-Stewardship published its draft transition proposal for names on December 1st 2014 ( <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-e n.pdf> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-en .pdf). This document contains three elements that may be specifically relevant to the work of the CCWG-Accountability as follows: . Section 3.3 - "Independent Review of Board Actions - the CWG-Stewardship may propose that this becomes binding under certain circumstances directly related to IANA; no other changes proposed". If this were to be included in the final proposal implementation would require a change to the ICANN Bylaws regarding the IRP. . Section 3.4.3.2 - Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests. This is still under consideration by the CWG-Stewardship but would be a replacement for the authorization function for all changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision on these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. This would probably require modifications to the ICANN Bylaws. . Section 3.4.3.3 - Independent Appeals Panel - The CWG-Stewardship is proposing that an independent review panel be set up to deal with contested changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal it is generally agreed that such a mechanism should be part of the final proposal and that its decisions would be binding. As such this would also require changes to the ICANN Bylaws. In addition to these elements the CWG in its public consultation has requested input on an alternate ``ICANN only`` proposal that is being considered by a number of participants in the CWG-Stewardship: Input on a specific (ICANN) alternative solution The CWG is also seeking input on a specific alternative option which has been raised within the CWG which envisages all NTIA responsibilities being transferred to ICANN. This option would require an increase in ICANN accountability to its constituent communities and require the adoption of binding arbitration mechanisms (such recommendations may be beyond the scope of the CWG and probably rest with the CCWG-Accountability or other groups). Note that this integrated option would impact the future ease or ability to tender for another IANA Functions Operator (other than ICANN). However, to ensure there has been a proper consideration of this option, the CWG, would appreciate input from the community regarding support, or not, for this concept. If this solution were to go forward it would probably require significant changes to ICANN's accountability mechanisms and therefore the ICANN Bylaws to ensure that e.g. the ICANN Board could not overrule the MRT in matters related to the performance of IANA Functions or at the very least can be effectively sanctioned for doing so. For your convenience we have also attached a copy of the Introduction of the CWG public consultation to this document as it covers all of these points in greater detail (Annex 1).
On 10/12/2014 22:51, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
A critical area that needs our attention is the interlinking and dependency between the work of this group i.e. the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the related Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability).
Please see attached for a document (copied into the body of the email below) to get this discussion moving.
Dear Jonathan and Lise, Thank you for this starting point. I think a key misunderstanding that those not involved in this CCWG might adopt is to assume that this CCWG has considered and addressed everything relevant to NTIA transition arising under the IANA Functions Contract. In fact, this CCWG has limited itself to consider those things arising under the IANA Functions Contract that pertain to IANA functions, and has not addressed those elements of the same contract that pertain to ICANN accountability. This CCWG understands that that is the responsibility of CCWG-Accountability. I would ask that your note on linkage include a statement making clear that we have not considered what the IANA Funcions Contract achieves for ICANN accountability, or how those elements should be replaced. It would be most unfortunate if CCWG-Accountability were to assume that anything in the IANA Functions contract must have been dealt with by this CCWG, and so was ineligible for consideration by CCWG-Accountability. Kind Regards, Malcolm Hutty.
Thank-you,
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
Co-chairs
--
Potential areas for interlinking and dependency between work of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)
Date: 10 December 2014
From: CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
The linkage between the work of the CWG-Stewardship and the enhanced accountability of ICANN has been recognised in a number of ways, including explicitly by the CCWG-Accountability itself. Indeed, Work Stream 1 of the CCWG-Accountability will focus on the mechanisms for enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition.
In an initial conversation between us (the co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship) and the co-chairs of the Drafting Team <https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter+and+Drafting+Team> for the CCWG-Accountability it was clear that input from the CWG-Stewardship on matters for Work Stream 1 would be helpful. This document aims to define those matters (derived from the draft transition proposal) and to seek input from the CWG-Stewardship on these.
The CWG-Stewardship published its draft transition proposal for names on December 1^st 2014 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-en...).
This document contains three elements that may be specifically relevant to the work of the CCWG-Accountability as follows:
· *Section 3.3*– “*/Independent Review of Board Actions/*/– the CWG-Stewardship may propose that this becomes binding under certain circumstances directly related to IANA; no other changes proposed/”. If this were to be included in the final proposal implementation would require a change to the ICANN Bylaws regarding the IRP.
· *Section 3.4.3.2 - Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests*. This is still under consideration by the CWG-Stewardship but would be a replacement for the authorization function for all changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision on these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. This would probably require modifications to the ICANN Bylaws.
· *Section 3.4.3.3 - Independent Appeals Panel – *The CWG-Stewardship is proposing that an independent review panel be set up to deal with contested changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal it is generally agreed that such a mechanism should be part of the final proposal and that its decisions would be binding. As such this would also require changes to the ICANN Bylaws.**
In addition to these elements the CWG in its public consultation has requested input on an alternate ``ICANN only`` proposal that is being considered by a number of participants in the CWG-Stewardship:
/Input on a specific (ICANN) alternative solution/
/The CWG is also seeking input on a specific alternative option which has been raised within the CWG which envisages all NTIA responsibilities being transferred to ICANN. This option would require an increase in ICANN accountability to its constituent communities and require the adoption of binding arbitration mechanisms (such recommendations may be beyond the scope of the CWG and probably rest with the CCWG-Accountability or other groups). Note that this integrated option would impact the future ease or ability to tender for another IANA Functions Operator (other than ICANN). However, to ensure there has been a proper consideration of this option, the CWG, would appreciate input from the community regarding support, or not, for this concept./
/ /
If this solution were to go forward it would probably require significant changes to ICANN’s accountability mechanisms and therefore the ICANN Bylaws to ensure that /e.g./ the ICANN Board could not overrule the MRT in matters related to the performance of IANA Functions or at the very least can be effectively sanctioned for doing so.
For your convenience we have also attached a copy of the Introduction of the CWG public consultation to this document as it covers all of these points in greater detail (Annex 1).
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
I agree with Malcolm. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 10/12/2014 22:51, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
All,
A critical area that needs our attention is the interlinking and dependency between the work of this group i.e. the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the related Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability).
Please see attached for a document (copied into the body of the email below) to get this discussion moving.
Dear Jonathan and Lise,
Thank you for this starting point.
I think a key misunderstanding that those not involved in this CCWG might adopt is to assume that this CCWG has considered and addressed everything relevant to NTIA transition arising under the IANA Functions Contract.
In fact, this CCWG has limited itself to consider those things arising under the IANA Functions Contract that pertain to IANA functions, and has not addressed those elements of the same contract that pertain to ICANN accountability. This CCWG understands that that is the responsibility of CCWG-Accountability.
I would ask that your note on linkage include a statement making clear that we have not considered what the IANA Funcions Contract achieves for ICANN accountability, or how those elements should be replaced.
It would be most unfortunate if CCWG-Accountability were to assume that anything in the IANA Functions contract must have been dealt with by this CCWG, and so was ineligible for consideration by CCWG-Accountability.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
Thank-you,
Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
Co-chairs
--
Potential areas for interlinking and dependency between work of the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) and the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)
Date: 10 December 2014
From: CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs, Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr.
The linkage between the work of the CWG-Stewardship and the enhanced accountability of ICANN has been recognised in a number of ways, including explicitly by the CCWG-Accountability itself. Indeed, Work Stream 1 of the CCWG-Accountability will focus on the mechanisms for enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition.
In an initial conversation between us (the co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship) and the co-chairs of the Drafting Team <
https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter+and+Drafting+Team> for
the CCWG-Accountability it was clear that input from the CWG-Stewardship on matters for Work Stream 1 would be helpful. This document aims to define those matters (derived from the draft transition proposal) and to seek input from the CWG-Stewardship on these.
The CWG-Stewardship published its draft transition proposal for names on December 1^st 2014 ( https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-naming-transition-01dec14-en... ).
This document contains three elements that may be specifically relevant to the work of the CCWG-Accountability as follows:
· *Section 3.3*– “*/Independent Review of Board Actions/*/– the CWG-Stewardship may propose that this becomes binding under certain circumstances directly related to IANA; no other changes proposed/”. If this were to be included in the final proposal implementation would require a change to the ICANN Bylaws regarding the IRP.
· *Section 3.4.3.2 - Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests*. This is still under consideration by the CWG-Stewardship but would be a replacement for the authorization function for all changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision on these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA. This would probably require modifications to the ICANN Bylaws.
· *Section 3.4.3.3 - Independent Appeals Panel – *The CWG-Stewardship is proposing that an independent review panel be set up to deal with contested changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal it is generally agreed that such a mechanism should be part of the final proposal and that its decisions would be binding. As such this would also require changes to the ICANN Bylaws.**
In addition to these elements the CWG in its public consultation has requested input on an alternate ``ICANN only`` proposal that is being considered by a number of participants in the CWG-Stewardship:
/Input on a specific (ICANN) alternative solution/
/The CWG is also seeking input on a specific alternative option which has been raised within the CWG which envisages all NTIA responsibilities being transferred to ICANN. This option would require an increase in ICANN accountability to its constituent communities and require the adoption of binding arbitration mechanisms (such recommendations may be beyond the scope of the CWG and probably rest with the CCWG-Accountability or other groups). Note that this integrated option would impact the future ease or ability to tender for another IANA Functions Operator (other than ICANN). However, to ensure there has been a proper consideration of this option, the CWG, would appreciate input from the community regarding support, or not, for this concept./
/ /
If this solution were to go forward it would probably require significant changes to ICANN’s accountability mechanisms and therefore the ICANN Bylaws to ensure that /e.g./ the ICANN Board could not overrule the MRT in matters related to the performance of IANA Functions or at the very least can be effectively sanctioned for doing so.
For your convenience we have also attached a copy of the Introduction of the CWG public consultation to this document as it covers all of these points in greater detail (Annex 1).
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (3)
-
Guru Acharya -
Jonathan Robinson -
Malcolm Hutty