[ALAC] Discussion: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Tue Nov 17 00:10:39 UTC 2015
Dear Seun,
my understanding is that no part of the email from the co-Chairs of the
CWG Stewardship contains a proposal to "change the charter". If such a
suggestion was made, there would need to be a detailed list of the
changes to be made in the charter, with the previous text given and the
replacement text (or added text) crafted and clearly shared. The
amendments would then need to be examined by all SOs and ACs and voted on.
My understanding is that the co-Chairs wanted to avoid all of this and
just provide notice to SOs/ACs about an extension to the initially
defined mission. No vote needed if there is no objection from any
Chartering Organisation.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/11/2015 19:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hello Alan,
>
> What we are basically doing by this request is modifying the charter,
> that is exactly the process that is happening right now[1] so I don't
> really think there will be any other issue/challenge with referencing
> the update in the charter. It is the charter that determines the scope
> of work of the CWG and when there is an expansion (which is agreed to
> by the Chartering organisation) the charter should reflect such.
>
> While I support the expansion of CWG scope to cover the intent of the
> request, I believe it should be reflected in the charter. This will
> not require more process than we are already going through right now.
>
> That said since Co-Chairs have already sent out the message in this
> manner(which is cool), the CWG should reference this document (with
> formal approval of Chartering organisations in the charter). It's a
> minor process/documentation that we should not ignore and let go on.
>
> Regards
> 1. In the event it is decided that the charter needs to be modified to
> address the omission or unreasonable
> impact, the co-chairs may propose to modify the charter. A
> modification shall only be effective after
> adoption of the adjusted charter by the chartering organizations in
> accordance with their own rules and
> procedures.
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 16 Nov 2015 21:06, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>> wrote:
>
> Seun, I believe that this lightweight process is instead of
> updating the charter, which would require new drafting and then
> formal action on behalf of all of the chartering bodies to approve
> the revision. If the chartering bodies all agree to this method,
> we have effectively changed the mandate of the CWG without having
> to go through the formalities - quicker and easier.
>
> These messages (asking for and getting permission from the
> chartering bodies) will form part of the overall documentation for
> the CWG and should be sufficient.
>
> Alan
>
> At 16/11/2015 11:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I believe it's in order and I recommend that while ALAC supports
>> this, we should recommend that the CWG charter be updated
>> accordingly or at least the communiqué be formerly referenced in
>> the charter.
>>
>> Regards
>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 16 Nov 2015 16:47, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
>> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> > wrote:
>>
>> Please see following message.
>>
>> I believe this makes sense. If anyone has concerns with this,
>> please let us know. Based on any negative comments, I will
>> initiate a Consensus Call or formal vote next Monday, 23
>> November. The Consensus Call or vote will be for ALAC Members
>> only, but of course, the discussion is open to anyone on this
>> list.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>> To: ALAC, CCNSO, GAC, GNSO, SSAC
>>> Cc: CWG-Stewardship, ICG, CRISP, IANAPLAN,
>>> CCWG-Accountability, ICANN Implementation & ICANN Policy
>>> Staff.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Chartering Organizations of the CWG IANA Stewardship,
>>>
>>> Subject: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
>>>
>>> At ICANN54 in Dublin, the IANA Stewardship Coordination
>>> Group (ICG) confirmed designation of the operational
>>> communities to be responsible for direct implementation
>>> oversight of their proposals.
>>>
>>> The CWG-Stewardship also met during the course of
>>> ICANN54 and discussed this role and we continued this
>>> discussion in a subsequent meeting on Thursday 5
>>> November 2015. An oversight role is not specifically
>>> detailed in our Charter, but it is the
>>> CWG-Stewardship’s view that our role in implementation
>>> is to ensure that the implementation is consistent with
>>> the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal and furthermore, to
>>> provide input on the implementation work when required
>>> by staff working on the implementation or, if and when
>>> necessary, to bring the implementation work back in line
>>> with the intent of the Final Proposal.
>>>
>>> In our view, the most logical option is to have the
>>> CWG-Stewardship working group continue in its current
>>> form and with the responsibility to monitor the
>>> implementation and provide input where needed. Of
>>> course, this responsibility would include regular
>>> updates to the Chartering Organizations via the
>>> appointed members as well as consultations with the
>>> Chartering Organizations should issues be identified
>>> that are deemed without this specific remit.
>>>
>>> We note here for your information, that while the
>>> CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal was submitted in June
>>> 2015, the CWG-Stewardship has remained active and
>>> therefore available when needed. This has included being
>>> available to answer questions from the ICG, or to
>>> monitor the CCWG-Accountability dependencies and to
>>> coordinate with the other operational communities on
>>> shared issues such as IANA intellectual property rights.
>>>
>>> As the CWG-Stewardship Charter does not specifically
>>> address implementation, we would like to ensure that the
>>> CWG-Stewardship’s proposed approach in relation to
>>> implementation is not inconsistent with the intent of
>>> the Chartering Organizations concerning the scope and
>>> role of the CWG-Stewardship. We therefore propose to
>>> proceed to oversee the implementation work as described
>>> above unless there are objections from one or more
>>> Chartering Organizations.
>>>
>>> We would like to emphasize that the CWG-Stewardship does
>>> not intend to change its working methods in light of
>>> this ongoing role. The group will remain open to anyone
>>> who wishes to join, and we will welcome informed
>>> individuals with relevant implementation and operational
>>> experience to join the CWG-Stewardship in this next phase.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your consideration of this matter and for
>>> your ongoing support of our work. Please let us know of
>>> any concerns by no later than 30 November 2015.
>>>
>>> Jonathan Robinson & Lise Fuhr
>>> CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151116/db8489d9/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list