Re: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
- To: "GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
- From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 02:01:21 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AQHRJ+5Y0vMkEajx6ESPPeq1WOO5dw==
- Thread-topic: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
- User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/126.96.36.199023
As noted in the action item list coming out of the previous meeting, please
review the message from the CWG-Stewardship below and indicate if you have any
concerns or objections to the proposed CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
by 4 December at the latest.
From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on
behalf of Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday 16 November 2015 10:09
To: "GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)"
Subject: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation
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-Stewardship'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
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