Re: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Closing the loop on this (and thanks to Wolf-Ulrich for weighing in), I’ll send 
the response as drafted.

Thanks—

J.


From: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 14:22
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "Austin, 
Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Marika 
Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO 
Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation

>From Marika’s E-Mail I understood the need to answer just in case of a concern 
>or objection.

So, to be clear, this is a non-objection.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich


From: James M. Bladel<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 4:09 PM
To: Austin, Donna<mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx> ; Marika 
Konings<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> ; mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation

Agree with Donna.  No objections to the proposal.

Thanks—

J.


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
behalf of "Austin, Donna" 
<Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 11:33
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation

Marika

I think it makes sense for the CWG to continue as outlined.

Thanks

Donna

From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, 25 November 2015 6:01 PM
To: GNSO Council List (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] TR: CWG-Stewardship role in implementation

Dear All,

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.

Thanks,

Marika

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>)" 
<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 
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-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
CWG-Stewardship co-Chairs