Members and participants of the CCWG-Accountability are on their way to Dublin for a full week of intense work and engagement with other ICANN54 attendees. A list of the Enhancing ICANNAccountability-related meetings is available here.

As co-Chairs, we are grateful to the volunteers, support staff, advisors and independent counsel who put up a tremendous effort to prepare for these meetings. They deserve and have earned the community's greatest respect and the deepest recognition.

We are very pleased that the analysis of the 93 comments received in the 2nd Public Comment period is now complete. Work Parties (WPs) have produced summaries, analyzed the content of submissions and identified options for the group's consideration. You can find these essential inputs here.

In anticipation of the various meetings, we are providing a rough assessment of our progress through a Scorecard, which can be found below:

Report Section	Subtopic	WP Owner	Status	Relationship with CWG-Stewardship Requirements
3.1. Revised mission, commitments & core values	Refine wording of mission & core values based on public comment feedback	WP2	To be refined	Represents the standard of review for the IRP, which is a requirement from the CWG-Stewardship
3.1. Revised mission, commitments & core values	Human rights bylaw article	WP4	To be considered
4. "Fundamental Bylaws"	Scope	WP2	Supported	Fundamental Bylaws are a requirement of the CWG-Stewardship
5.1. Independent Review Panel enhancements		WP2	To be refined	IRP is a requirement from the CWG-Stewardship
5.2. Reconsideration process Enhancements		WP2	To be refined
6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other)	Implementation model discussion	WP1	Some disagreement	The mechanism is necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship
6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other)	Community Forum	WP1	To be refined	The mechanism is necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship
6. Mechanism to represent the community (community council or other)	Decision making mechanisms	WP1	Some disagreement	The mechanism is necessary to provide for the powers required by CWG-Stewardship
7.1. Reject Budget/strategy	PC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also pending on community mechanism discussions	WP1	To be considered	The CWG-Stewardship requires community rights, regarding elaboration and approval of the budget, especially with relation to IANA
7.2. Reject Bylaw change	Details are pending community mechanism discussions	WP1	To be refined
4.5. Approve "Fundamental Bylaw" change	Details are pending community mechanism discussions	WP1	To be refined	CWG-Stewadship requires fundamental Bylaws mechanisms to protect against future changes of accountability mechanisms
7.3. Individual Board Director removal	PC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also pending on community mechanism discussions	WP1	To be considered	Community rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall entire Board
7.4. Recall of theICANN Board	PC2 received some proposals to adjust. Also pending on community mechanism discussions	WP1	To be considered	Community rights, specifically to appoint/remove members, recall entire Board
9. AoC reviews transcription into the Bylaws	Refine details	WP1	Supported	CWG-Stewardship requires an IANAFunction Review as a "Fundamental Bylaw"
10. Bylaw changes recommended after stress tests	Discuss ST 18 and refine	ST-WP	Some disagreement
10. Stress Tests (Based on WA 4 and ST-WP work)	Some comments received on ST 29 & 30	ST-WP	To be refined
11. Items for consideration in Work stream 2	Scope to be defined versus continuous improvement items	Co-chairs	To be considered
8.3. SO/ACAccountability	Consider SO/ACAccountability	WP3	To be refined
12. Implementation Plan including Timing		Co-chairs	To be refined	Reviewed draft started

Download a PDF of this Scorecard here.

A significant number of items have a status of "To be refined," but we are confident that these refinements can be provided shortly to meet stakeholder expectations. Our hope is that many of these will turn into a "Supported" status by the end of the Dublin meeting.

Areas where more work is needed to reach consensus are in orange and red. Several of these items are related to community powers and have received broad support in principle. However, the implementation model for these powers remains a fundamental discussion. Until a solution is found that does not raise any significant level of objection, these issues cannot be finalized.

There have been significant discussions in the last few weeks, on the mailing list as well as during theface-to-face meeting in Los Angeles. These discussions were useful to better understand the various perspectives and the areas where views were diverging.

As co-Chairs, we would describe these discussions as follows:

Views in the community differ on the level of enforceability that is Strictly required for the community powers, in light of the CWG-Stewardship conditions (beginning at paragraph 106).
The CCWG-Accountability has requested legal input to provide more details on the practical differences in terms of complexity, delay or cost associated to the various levels of enforceability.
Significant concerns were raised regarding the weight of the various SOs and ACs in the community mechanism, as well as the ability to opt-in or opt-out of this system. Alternative decision making mechanisms, such as consensus or rough consensus, are being investigated.
The requirement of SO and AC accountability to the global Internet community as a whole has been a key theme of the comments received, although few concrete suggestions are offered (see WP3 documents)
A 2-phase scenario to implement community empowerment is being investigated, which could help accommodate some of the concerns related to the significance of the changes proposed by the CCWG-Accountability 2nd Draft Report.

The CCWG-Accountability is fully mobilized and committed to make great strides during the Dublin meeting. We are aware that the finalization of our recommendations is the last missing piece in the IANAStewardship Transition puzzle and we take this responsibility very seriously. We will welcome in Dublin all contributions to this bottom-up, multistakeholder, consensus driven process.

All hands on deck! Looking forward to a productive week in Dublin!

volume-2

IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2)

Root Zone Management

The Root Zone Management implementation planning track contains projects relating to changes to the Root Zone Management System (RZMS) to remove NTIA's authorization role, parallel testing of the production and parallel test RZMS systems; and the development, and execution of an agreement with Verisign as the root zone maintainer.

Root Zone Management System (RZMS) Parallel Testing

Status update:

It has been one month since the start of the parallel testing period and everything continues to go smoothly. Click here to view Verisign’s daily Parallel Operations Root Zone Management System Comparison Reports of all the root zone files generated.

In addition to Verisign’s daily reports, ICANN has posted the first of three Monthly Reports on RZMS Parallel Testing Progress during the testing period. The report is available on ICANN’s dedicated Parallel Testing landing page.

In the event that no unexplained differences in root zone files are identified between the production RZMS and the parallel test RZMS, the testing period will end successfully on 5 July 2016.

Documents/announcements posted:

Mailing list:

None.

Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA)

Status update:

Discussions between ICANN and Verisign to finalize details of the RZMA are continuing. The two parties have coalesced around many key elements of the agreement and hope to have a final draft by the end of the month.

Once the draft RZMA is finalized it will be made publicly available on icann.org.

Documents/announcements posted:

None.

Mailing list(s):

None.

Stewardship Transition

The Stewardship Transition planning track contains projects to prepare relationship documentation with the operational communities, creation of a Post-Transition IANA (PTI) entity, establishment of a Customer Standing Committee (CSC) and a Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC), operationalizing the IANA customer service escalation mechanisms and Service Level Agreements (SLAs).

Post-Transition IANA (PTI)

Status update:

ICANN has been working with the Implementation Oversight Task Force (IOTF) on various activities relating to the PTI. Summaries of PTI formation documents (Bylaws, articles of incorporation) as well as the conflict of interest policy have been shared with the IOTF. ICANN continues to work with the IOTF to finalize the process and timing of review for these documents as well as for the ICANN-PTI contracts.

Documents/announcements posted this week:

None.

Mailing list(s):

Customer Standing Committee (CSC)

Status update:

In the CWG-Stewardship proposal, the Domain Names community recommended that a CSC be formed to replace NTIA’s role as it relates to monitoring performance of the IANA naming function. The composition of the CSC will include members and liaisons from all ICANN Supporting Organizations(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs).

A Request for Appointment is expected to be sent to SOs and ACs this month to appoint members and liaisons to the CSC using their internal processes.

Documents/announcements posted this week:

None.

Mailing list(s):

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/iotf/

Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC)

Status update:

The RZERC Charter (v4) was circulated to the CWG-Stewardship on 4 May 2016. The CWG-Stewardship will discuss the Charter on their 12 May 2016 call, and members and participants of the group are encouraged to provide any comment by 23:59 UTC on 17 May 2016.

Following analysis and incorporation of any input received from the CWG-Stewardship, ICANN will post the Charter for a 30-day public comment period.

Documents/announcements:

Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC) Charter (v4)

Mailing list(s):

Accountability Enhancements

The Accountability Enhancements track contains plans to implement enhancements to ICANN’s Independent Review and Reconsideration Request processes, to update ICANN’s governance documents, and to operationalize new community powers defined by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability).

ICANN's Bylaws

Status update:

ICANN and the community are in the middle of a 30-day public comment period on the new draft ICANNBylaws. Any interested party can submit comments to the public comment forum until 23:59 UTC on 21 May 2016.

Adoption of the new Bylaws by the ICANN Board is anticipated for on or around 27 May 2016. Once new ICANN Bylaws have been adopted, ICANN will notify NTIA so they can complete their anticipated 90-day review of the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal.

Documents/announcements:

Mailing list(s):

CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs
Thomas Rickert
León Sanchez
Matheiu Weill

Content

Space Tools

Versions Compared

Old Version 64

New Version Current

Key

Most Recent Blog Update

CCWG-Accountability co-Chairs Statement Leading into ICANN54 in Dublin

IANA Stewardship Transition Planning Update (Volume 2)

Root Zone Management

Root Zone Management System (RZMS) Parallel Testing

Root Zone Maintainer Agreement (RZMA)

Stewardship Transition

Post-Transition IANA (PTI)

Customer Standing Committee (CSC)

Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC)

Accountability Enhancements

ICANN's Bylaws