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

[Ariel Liang]

Dear All, 

Following Alan¹s email, kindly submit your comment on the Final Proposal via
the comment functions in the At-Large Workspace:
https://community.icann.org/x/u540Aw.

Best Regards,
Ariel 

From:  Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Date:  Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 5:54 PM
To:  ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject:  [ALAC] ACTION: CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering
Organization Consideration and Approval

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.
>  
> 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/20150611/850f5ebb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5075 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20150611/850f5ebb/smime.p7s>