[CRISP-TEAM] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Comments before May 18 - Draft CCWG co-chair submission to CWG public comment

[Izumi Okutani]

FYI. 


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Comments before May 18 - Draft CCWG co-chair submission to CWG public comment
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:47:44 +0200
From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
Reply-To: Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>


Dear colleagues,

As you know, the CWG-Stewardship 2nd public comment is open until May 
20th 
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en). 
Since this report lays out some dependencies between the proposals of 
the CWG and our group's, we decided during our CCWG call on May 5th to 
prepare a CCWG submission to this public comment period.

Below is a draft CCWG submission, which would be sent on behalf of the 
co-chairs. Substance is based on our initial draft proposal. Please 
share your feedbacks before Monday 18 May to enable finalization of the 
submission in a timeframe consistent with the CWG public comment period.

Best,
Thomas, Leon & Mathieu


---------
Dear CWG-Stewardship co-chairs,

This submission is in response to your group's 2nd draft proposal, open 
for public comment on 22 April 2015. We submit these comments as 
co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN 
Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), based on the proposed 
accountability enhancements recently published by our group 
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en), 
and open to public comment.

First, we would like to underline the quality of the ongoing 
coordination between co-chairs of our respective groups.  We have 
enjoyed regular and effective discussions since the launch of our group 
in December 2014. Our groups have been updated regularly about progress 
made as well as issues faced, and the interdependency and interrelation 
between our work has led to key correspondence being exchanges on a 
regular basis. As CCWG-Accountability co-chairs, we have been provided 
with the opportunity to speak with the CWG-Stewardship on two occasions, 
and you also introduced the key elements of your 2nd draft proposal to 
the CCWG-Accountability.

As outlined in your public comment announcement "the CWG-Stewardship's 
proposal has dependencies on and is expressly conditioned upon the 
CCWG-Accountability process." Overall, it is our understanding that the 
CCWG-Accountability's initial proposals meet the CWG-Stewardship 
expectations. We would like to stress that, within our group's 
deliberations, the willingness to meet these requirements have been 
uncontroversial.

Our comments will focus on the specific requirements that you outline :
���    Ability for the community to have more rights regarding the 
development and consideration of the ICANN budget;
The CCWG-Accountability initial proposals address this requirement 
directly in Section 5.2, which introduces a new power for the community 
to "consider strategic & operating plans and budgets after they are 
approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and reject them 
based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set 
out in ICANN���s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the 
needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of 
concern to the community."

���    Empowering the multistakeholder community to have certain rights 
with respect to the ICANN Board, including the ICANN Board's oversight 
of the IANA operations, specifically, the ability to appoint and remove 
members of the ICANN Board, and to recall the entire Board;
The CCWG-Accountability initial proposals introduce new powers for the 
community, which include the ability to remove individual Directors 
(section 5.5) or recall the entire Board (section 5.6). These proposals 
would address the CWG-Stewardship requirement.

���    The IANA Function Review, created to conduct periodic and special 
reviews of the IANA Functions, should be incorporated into the ICANN bylaws;
The CCWG-Accountability proposes to incorporate the review system 
defined in the Affirmation of Commitments into ICANN's Bylaws, including 
the ability to start new reviews (section 6.2, page 60). Based on your 
group's proposal, the CCWG introduced a recommendation to create a new 
review, based on the requirements you set forth.

���    The CSC, created to monitor the performance of the IANA Functions 
and escalate non-remediated issues to the ccNSO and GNSO, should be 
incorporated into the ICANN bylaws.
While this specific requirement was not addressed by the 
CCWG-Accountability, it would not contradict any of our proposals. It 
might be more appropriate if this recommendation was drafted and 
specified directly as one of the CWG-Stewardship recommendations.

���    As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG-Accountability 
should not cover ccTLD delegation / re-delegation issues as these are 
expected to be developed by the ccTLD community through the appropriate 
processes.���
When addressing enhancements to review and appeal mechanisms (both in 
sections 4.1 - IRP and 4.2 Reconsideration process), the 
CCWG-Accountability initial proposals  state that "as requested by the 
CWG-Stewardship, decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations 
would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have 
been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other 
interested parties."

���    All of the foregoing mechanisms are to be provided for in the ICANN 
bylaws as "fundamental bylaws" requiring community ascent in order for 
amendment.
The CCWG Accountability initial proposals describe the scope of the 
"fundamental bylaws" in section 3.2.4. It is proposed that the "Reviews 
that are part of the CWG-Stewardship���s work ��� the IANA Function Review 
and any others they may require, as well as the creation of a Customer 
Standing Committee" would be considered Fundamental Bylaws. As such, any 
change of such Bylaws would require prior approval by the community.

In conclusion, we would like to emphasize our deep appreciation of the 
outstanding work the CWG-Stewardship has conducted and our confidence 
that our respective groups' interdependence will be resolved to the 
satisfaction of stakeholder needs and expectations. We remain committed 
to closely coordinating on any further evolution of your requirements 
based on this 2nd round of public comment.

Best regards,
Mathieu


-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur g��n��ral
T��l: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************




-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community