[CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4

Mon Dec 22 14:46:59 UTC 2014

Dear Mathieu (and others)

Thanks very much for asking about the concept of Work Stream Zero (or “WS0”).  I should say at the outset that the concept is very much dependent on the scope of ICANN Board authority.  If we take seriously Dave Johnson’s suggestion, for example, that the Board might limit itself contractually to a narrow domain of authority then the requirement for accountability mechanisms scales back accordingly.  If, however, we are obliged to proceed as we are now (with the possibility that some future Board might vote to expand ICANN authority quite a bit beyond the IANA function) then the need for external accountability measures is much greater.

As I said in my first note to the Area 2 Working Group, the concept behind WS0 is derived from two instincts.  The first is the highly practical one that the CCWG will need to prioritize its proposals to ICANN.  If we ask for 50 changes in an undifferentiated mass, we are unlikely to achieve the goals we have of ensuring effective accountability.  In some ways WS1 and WS2 are intended to identify that sort of priority – but there the variable is “time to implement” the change.  The idea behind WS0 is that some changes (even ones that might take some time to effectuate) are absolutely vital to assure accountability going forward.

So my answer to your question is simple.  WS0 requirements are ones that are “red lines” for the community.  They are ones that, in the end, we think we cannot live without and that would lead the community to recommend against the IANA Functions transition until they were adopted by the Board.  So the “impact on the NTIA’s transition” is that these are sufficiently vital to community interests that failure to adopt them would prevent the transition from occurring altogether.

Thus, my argument is that WS0 forms the very core of reforms that are “required to be implemented” before the transition.  They are ones, without which NTIA’s transition should not proceed.

Some may think this is a null set.  I do not and have separately offered my own take on what is a WS0 requirement.  But whether one agrees on the content, I think the concept is a fairly explicit portion of our Charter.

Cheers

Paul

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***

509 C St. NE

Washington, DC 20002

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 2:56 AM
To: Steve DelBianco; accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Thomas Rickert
Cc: ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4

Dear Steve, Dear Colleagues,

Many thanks for this proposal to categorize WS1 / WS2 issues. I want to highlight that this is one of the fundamental blocks that we need to reach consensus on to proceed. 

I have also noted Paul Rosenzweig idea of definition of a WS0 : 

As a result, I think that part of what we should be doing in the long run is focusing on the core/critical 3-5 items that are absolutely essential to ensuring accountability.  In short, I think there is actually a sub-category of WS1 (call it WS0 for want of a better term) that would be fundamental red-lines for the community.  

To comply with our Charter as well as anticipate reactions from some stakeholders, I think we would need to elaborate on how this related to the NTIA transition. The two key questions in our Charter are :

*         What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential accountability concerns could this cause?

*         What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition?

I do recommend every colleague to consider this with attention. 

best
Mathieu

Le 21/12/2014 22:10, Steve DelBianco a écrit :

-  Per requests from the chairs and from Alain Bidron, I expanded the rationale for work stream designations.  These appear in the headers of the table and are shown below:

Proposed rationale for designating Work Streams:  Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that must be in place [or firmly committed] before IANA transition occurs.  All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board. 

1. Mechanisms giving the ICANN community ultimate authority over the ICANN corporation.   Most of these are initially designated as WS1, since community Members need the leverage of IANA transition to obtain these Bylaws changes. 

2. Mechanisms to restrict actions of the board and management of the ICANN corporation.   Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above).

3. Mechanisms to prescribe actions of the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in WS1 (above).  For example, a bottom-up consensus process to change ICANN bylaws might be rejected by ICANN board, but the Members could then reverse that decision and force the change.  [I folded the Transparency items into this category]

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> 
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141222/342d11a2/attachment.html>