CCWG Accountability Co-chairs submission to the CWG
Dear CWG-Stewardship members and participants, Dear Lise, Dear Jonathan,This submission is in response to your group's 2nd draft proposal, open for public comment on 22 April 2015. We submit these comments in our capacities of co-chairs of the cross community working group Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), based on the proposed accountability enhancements recently published by our group (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en), and open to public comment.
First, we would like to underline the quality of the ongoing coordination between co-chairs of our respective groups that has been taking place since the launch of our group. Each of our groups has been updated regularly of progress made as well as issues faced, and the interdependency and interrelation between our works have led to key correspondence being exchanges on a regular basis to formalize it. As CCWG Accountability, co-chairs, we were provided with the opportunity to speak to the CWG Stewardship on two occasions, and you also introduced the key elements of your 2nd draft proposal to the CCWG Accountability.
As outlined in your public comment announcement "the CWG-Stewardship's proposal has dependencies on and is expressly conditioned upon the CCWG-Accountability process." Overall, it is our understanding that the CCWG Accountability initial proposals meet the CWG Stewardship expectations. We would like to stress that, within our group's deliberations, the ability to meet these requirements have been rather uncontroversial.
Our comments will focus on the specific requirements that you outline :* Ability for the community to have more rights regarding the development and consideration of the ICANN budget;
The CCWG Accountability initial proposals address this requirement directly in Section 5.2, which introduces a new power for the community to "consider strategic & operating plans and budgets after they are approved by the Board (but before they come into effect) and reject them based on perceived inconsistency with the purpose, Mission and role set out in ICANN’s Articles and Bylaws, the global public interest, the needs of ICANN stakeholders, financial stability or other matters of concern to the community."
Due to the proposed creation of the Post Transition IANA organization, the CWG will need to develop a proposed process for the IANA-specific budget review. It could be made a component of the bigger review. The CCWG Accountability is availaiblefor further coordination between the two groups on that aspect.
* Empowering the multistakeholder community to have certain rights with respect to the ICANN Board, including the ICANN Board's oversight of the IANA operations, specifically, the ability to appoint and remove members of the ICANN Board, and to recall the entire Board;
The CCWG Accountability initial proposals introduce new powers for the community, which include the ability to remove individual Directors (section 5.5) or recall the entire Board (section 5.6). These proposals would address the CWG Stewardship requirement.
* The IANA Function Review, created to conduct periodic and special reviews of the IANA Functions, should be incorporated into the ICANN bylaws;
The CCWG Accountability proposes to incorporate the review system defined in the Affirmation of Commitments into Icann's Bylaws, including the ability to start new reviews (section 6.2, page 60) . Based on your group's proposal, the CCWG introduced a recommendation to create a new review, based on the requirements you set forth.
We have noted that a Separation review is also being discussed within the CWG. This could also be addressed by the CCWG Accountability. However, since it is still in process, it is not explicitly referred to at this stage. The CWG Stewardship might wish to provide additional details through the CCWG accountability public comment, which ends on June 3rd.
* The CSC, created to monitor the performance of the IANA Functions and escalate non-remediated issues to the ccNSO and GNSO, should be incorporated into the ICANN bylaws.
Section 1.4, on page 12 of the CCWG Accountability interim proposals, acknowledges the intention of the CWG Stewardship to create a Customer Standing Committee. The CCWG Accountability did not at this point consider specific Bylaw changes related to the CSC. It would however not contradict any of the CCWG Accountability proposal. It might therefore be more appropriate if this recommendation was drafted and specified directly as one of the CWG Stewardship recommendation.
* As such, any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG-Accountability should not cover ccTLD delegation / re-delegation issues as these are expected to be developed by the ccTLD community through the appropriate processes.”
When addressing enhancements to review and appeal mechanisms (both in sections 4.1 - IRP and 4.2 Reconsideration process), the CCWG Accountability initial proposals state that "as requested by the CWG-Stewardship, decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other interested parties."
* All of the foregoing mechanisms are to be provided for in the ICANN bylaws as "fundamental bylaws" requiring community ascent in order for amendment.
The CCWG Accountability initial proposals describe the scope of the "fundamental bylaws" in section 3.2.4. It is proposed that the "Reviews that are part of the CWG-Stewardship’s work – the IANA Function Review and any others they may require, as well as the creation of a Customer Standing Committee" would be considered Fundamental Bylaws. As such, any change of such Bylaws would require prior approval by the community.
In conclusion, we would like to emphasize our deep appreciation of the outstanding work the CWG Stewardship has conducted and our confidence that our respective groups' interdependence will be resolved to the satisfaction of stakeholder needs and expectations. We remain committed to closely coordinating on any further evolution of your requirements based on this 2nd round of public comment.
Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill Co-chairs, CCWG Accountability