A process to resolve CWG Stewardship dependencies on CCWG Accountability
All, During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group. In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal. The CCWG have had a formal update <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on -progress-made-in-and-after-icann54-in-dublin> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th. We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly. Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages: 1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position. We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks. Thank-you. Lise & Jonathan Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship
1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and 2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does). MM: To me, this seems to be exactly what the CWG should do.
Hi Co-Chairs, This sounds like a good plan, I would not expect we would need the service of Sidley for both phases, but let's see how it goes. That said, as we all know that the comment period for the 3rd report will be shorter than normal and there is a chance that the CCWG current draft report will not change significantly before 30 Nov so it may be good to have Sidley look at the current version to give us an idea of how long it will take them to get their analysis to us. It will be good to get Sidley's output early December so there will be enough time(at least 2 weeks) for CWG to discuss and confirm same to CCWG before the peak of the comment period. I believe it may be helpful if CWG submits her comment early enough as it could be a source of information for others intending to comment. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 27 Nov 2015 17:03, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:
All,
During our CWG meeting last week, we were unable to deal fully with the topic of the CCWG on ICANN accountability in so far as it is directly relevant to the work of this group.
In particular, confirming the process to deal with the fact that the CWG Stewardship response to the ICG is expressly conditioned on the CCWG Accountability proposal.
The CCWG have had a formal update <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-issues-formal-update-on-...> out for a while now, ahead of publication of their 3rd draft proposal which is due out on Monday, November 30th.
We propose to utilise the services of Sidley Austin to confirm that the CCWG Accountability proposal does indeed meet the conditionality requirements of the CWG Stewardship. As you will recall, Sidley reviewed the previous CCWG proposal and assisted similarly.
Moreover, we propose to undertake this work in two stages:
1. Review the CCWG proposal put out for public comment and then submit confirmation to the public comment that the CCWG proposal does meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does) and
2. Confirm that the final proposal (to be prepared following the public comment period) continues to meet the CWG conditionality (if indeed it does).
We believe that by working in this way, we will be able to
A. Assist the CCWG by clearly communicating our position at the key stages. As we have done throughout the course of their work
B. Assist the CCWG chartering organisations at key stages of their processes such that the they will be able to review the proposal and make their respective decisions with clear knowledge of the CWG position.
We look forward to working with the CWG on this and other matters over the forthcoming weeks.
Thank-you.
Lise & Jonathan
Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson
Co-chairs, CWG Stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Robinson -
Mueller, Milton L -
Seun Ojedeji