[ALAC] Discussion: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation

Tue Nov 17 16:44:59 UTC 2015

I support the expansion and the co-chairs notes.

-ed

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:38 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello Olivier/all,
>
> Maybe this is not getting across correctly, let me try again. What the
> Co-Chairs has requested the Chartering organisations to do is to approve
> the expansion of the CWG scope of work. That scope is CWG is defined in the
> charter.
>
> I am totally in support of the expansion and there is no question about
> that. What I am however saying is that this expansion request and approval
> be linked to the governing document (charter) one way or the other(once all
> the Chartering organisations have approved). We are already going through
> the process of expanding the scope and including/linking it up with the
> charter will not require any other process.
>
> Like I said, it's a minor details that I thought we should just
> advice/hint/mention to the Co-Chairs in our acceptance response. Something
> in the line of "... We accept the expansion and we suggest it be linked to
> the charter as well". If ALAC is not fine with such inclusion, it still
> does not mean I am against the expansion.
>
> I hope that provides some clarification on the intent of my mail. I won't
> be raising this on the CWG list as I sense it may be misunderstood and
> unnecessarily prolong the process which is not what I have in mind.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 17 Nov 2015 01:10, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
>> 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> 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 communiquÃ© 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 >
>>> 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-Stewardshipâ€™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-Stewardshipâ€™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
>>> 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 listALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://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)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151117/4887ea40/attachment.html>