<html>
<body>
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.<br><br>
I ask that At-Large Staff create an At-Large Policy Development wiki page
for this report where comments can be submitted.<br><br>
I have reviewed the report against the comments made by the ALAC on the
draft proposal.<br><br>
In my mind, this Proposal warrants serious consideration by the ALAC, and
I suspect ratification.<br><br>
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:<br><br>
- it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen;<br>
- if the ccNSO and gNSO *BOTH* think there is a problem, there likely
*IS* a problem;<br>
- we would be represented on the SIFR;<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Please take the time to review the report, and I look forward to your
wiki comments and discussion in Buenos Aires.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 11/06/2015 10:53 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><i>Sent on behalf of
CWG-Stewardship Chairs by support staff. <br>
</i><br>
To: CWG-Stewardship Chartering SOs and ACs <br><br>
The ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC<br><br>
<br><br>
Dear SO and AC Chairs, <br><br>
<b>CWG-Stewardship proposed response to the ICG RFP the IANA Stewardship
Transition<br>
</b><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br>
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.<br><br>
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:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw">
https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw</a>. <br>
<br>
Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact
us.<br>
<br>
<br>
Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson<br>
<i>Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship<br>
</i><br><br>
<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>