[Internal-cg] Call #25, Jan 13 - Proposed agenda

Patrik Fältström paf at frobbit.se
Sun Jan 10 13:14:17 UTC 2016


On 10 Jan 2016, at 13:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

> We in CCWG also do not know how the results of the discussions in January will be reflected in the Final Proposal  ,in particular, if major changes are made how it will appears
> a) without being subject to public comments
> b) with public comments
> The situation in b) could delay the process by the duration of public comments and its examination
> These were some of the points that I intend to raise tomorrow evening as part of briefing but tou idrectly raised them

As a chartering Organization, SSAC already did rise our points in:

SAC-067: Overview and History of the IANA Functions (15 August 2014)
SAC-068: SSAC Report on the IANA Functions Contract (10 October 2014)
SAC-069: SSAC Advisory on Maintaining the Security and Stability of the IANA Functions Through the Stewardship Transition (10 December 2014)
SAC-071: SSAC Comments on Cross Community Working Group Proposal on ICANN Accountability Enhancements (05 June 2015)
SAC-072: SSAC Comment on the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions Proposal (24 June 2015)
SAC-076: SSAC Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 3rd Draft Proposal (21 December 2015)

If you specifically look at SAC-071 and then SAC-076 you see that no new issues are brought up. We already have stated our view very early on in the process. Because of this, SSAC will of course not bring up any *new* things, but "just" evaluate whether the proposal put forward do address our issues and concerns on what issues are important.

To be even more specific, in SAC-076, we only point out:

1. The SSAC supports the incorporation into the Bylaws of the periodic review to ensure that ICANN is “[p]reserving the security, stability, and resiliency of the Domain Name System.”

I.e. support of what is suggested.

2. The SSAC notes that the Sole Designator will be empowered to appoint and remove only those Directors selected by the organizations that currently appoint voting members to the ICANN Board (i.e., At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Address Supporting Organization (ASO), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), and Nominating Committee (NomCom)). It will not be empowered to appoint or remove Board Liaisons.

I.e. support of what is suggested.

But also:

3. The SSAC advises that any process that empowers the Community to reject a part or the whole of the IANA Budget must be implemented in such a way as to ensure the stable and continuous delivery of the IANA Functions.

Which is an important issue.

I.e. we are at the moment down to these three issues, and if 1&2 are not changed, and if 3 is taken into account, then SSAC by definition will just do a clean support for the proposal on Jan 21, and only comments might have to do with suggestions for the *implementation* phase which we all know will be important.

I.e. SSAC do feel a great responsibility to not increase delay, by for example introduce surprises.

    Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20160110/4ab8507e/attachment.asc>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list