[ALAC] Discussion: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation

[Alan Greenberg]

We have two capable co-chairs and I am happy to 
leave the decision to them. If you feel strongly 
about this, then you are free to raise the issue on the CWG mailing list.

Alan

At 16/11/2015 04:14 PM, 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" 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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" 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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-Stewardship̢۪s 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
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>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+(ALAC) 
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151116/32b4414c/attachment.html>