[ALAC] ACTION: CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval

[Alan Greenberg]

Attached is the Final Proposal of the CWG on IANA Stewardship 
Transition. As a Chartering Organization, the ALAC is being requested 
to approve or otherwise comment on the Proposal no later than 
Thursday, 25 June 2015.

I ask that At-Large Staff create an At-Large Policy Development wiki 
page for this report where comments can be submitted.

I have reviewed the report against the comments made by the ALAC on 
the draft proposal.

In my mind, this Proposal warrants serious consideration by the ALAC, 
and I suspect ratification.

Our largest problem with the Draft Proposal was that the GNSO and 
ccNSO were the bodies that both had to approve a CSC request to 
initiate a Special IANA Review (SIFR). We had a number of reasons, 
but the largest was that the GNSO was not fully representative of the 
non-ccTLD world. Specifically, the ALAC, the GAC, the SSAC, the RSSAC 
and others who have an interest in the outcome are not members of the 
GNSO. The final proposal does not alter the formal process, but now 
does require that the GNSO initiate meaningful consultation with 
other AC/SOs. This is not 100% satisfactory, but given that:

- it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen;
- if the ccNSO and gNSO *BOTH* think there is a problem, there likely 
*IS* a problem;
- we would be represented on the SIFR;

I think that this is a reasonable compromise. It does simplify things 
in that we are not invoking yet another body in the decision, 
although the GNSO does have some thinking to do about how it would 
make such a decision if this ever happens.

The other point we raised was that we (and other bodies with a single 
IFR representative) should be allowed alternates to ensure that we 
can always participate fully. Given that the AoC reviews have been 
pretty flexible on this, I do not think that the omission at this 
stage is a show stopper.

At the time of the closure, we had not come to closure on the 
composition of the PTI Board. We were definite in it not being 
controlled by registries. The proposal calls for two ICANN employees 
who have specific responsibilities in the area now to sit on the 
Board, the Senior IANA administrator, and two independent Directors 
named by the NomCom or a similar body. This Board is ultimately 
controlled by ICANN, so it does not need accountability measures of 
its own, three of the members are people who will implicitly have 
skills needed to resolve problems should they arise, and there is a 
component of external and community input. I find this quite acceptable.

Please take the time to review the report, and I look forward to your 
wiki comments and discussion in Buenos Aires.

Alan

At 11/06/2015 10:53 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
>Sent on behalf of CWG-Stewardship Chairs by support staff.
>
>To: CWG-Stewardship Chartering SOs and ACs
>
>The ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC
>
>
>
>Dear SO and AC Chairs,
>
>CWG-Stewardship proposed response to the ICG RFP the IANA 
>Stewardship Transition
>
>The Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions 
>(CWG-Stewardship) is pleased to provide its Chartering Organizations 
>with its proposed response to the IANA Stewardship Transition 
>Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals on the IANA 
>Stewardship Transition for your consideration and approval as per its Charter.
>
>The response is the result of extensive work by the CWG's 19 
>members, 133 participants and a team of highly qualified legal 
>advisors over the past year, which included over 100 calls or 
>meetings, 2 public consultations and more than 4,000 email messages. 
>It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, 
>specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who 
>participated and includes diligent attention to the input received 
>through the Public Comment proceedings. The final proposal has 
>received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no 
>objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering 
>Organization consideration.
>
>As noted in the CWG-Stewardship proposal itself, the proposal is 
>significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the 
>implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms proposed by 
>the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability 
>(CCWG-Accountability). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the 
>CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the 
>CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability 
>recommendations, if implemented as expected, will meet the 
>requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to 
>the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability 
>mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship 
>proposal, this proposal will require revision.
>
>We also note that there are certain implementation elements that 
>will require further dialogue in the near future, including with the 
>other operational communities, and these have been marked as such in 
>the final proposal. Two specific issues are particularly important 
>to highlight. One is the finalization of the service level 
>expectations (SLEs), where the proposal includes a set of agreed 
>principles between the CWG and IANA, but these remain to be 
>finalized in the form of a mutually agreed set of SLEs. A detailed 
>plan for this finalisation is being worked on and it is our view 
>that this detail, whilst vitally important, does not impact on the 
>substance of the proposal put to you for approval. The second issue 
>entails the location of intellectual property rights and this needs 
>further discussion with the other respondents to the ICG RFP and ICANN.
>As per the CWG-Stewardship's Charter we now seek your approval to 
>submit this final proposal to the ICG and ask you to consider this 
>approval in accordance with your respective SO or AC rules and 
>procedures by 25 June 2015 to meet the overall timing requirements 
>which would allow the transition to proceed, noting that final 
>approval is conditional on the approval of the CCWG-Accountability 
>Work Stream 1 recommendations.
>
>We will make ourselves, together with or other key contributors, 
>available to you at the ICANN 53 meeting in Buenos Aires in order to 
>answer any questions you may have and to explain any details of the 
>proposal. For your information, further background documents as well 
>as the slides, recordings and transcripts of recent webinars explain 
>the details of the final proposal are available here: 
><https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw.
>
>Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
>
>Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson
>Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20150611/283cf71f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FinalTransitionProposal_11June.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 901318 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20150611/283cf71f/FinalTransitionProposal_11June.pdf>