[CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

[Jonathan Zuck]

Of course, in so much as the transition represents a loss of leverage, WS1 needs to sufficiently replace it. It’s not really about the IANA transition itself so much as the elimination of the contractual relationship. I agree with Alan that we need to be disciplined about what to include in WS1 to ensure that we come away with the leverage to accomplish WS2.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 9:35 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; Accountability CCWG
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

I am somewhat troubled by all of the items in WS1 where I do not see the direct link to the IANA transition (even if the IANA transition was directly to ICANN without the intervening Contract Co.)

Note I am not saying that they might not be perfectly valid and desirable accountability mechanism, just that I do not see the direct link, and thus perhaps greatly increasing our work to be done to allow transition.

I do understand that it may be easier to get some of these accepted if done in association with WS1, but if we make our WS1 task too all-inclusive, it may not get done at all.

Alan

At 28/12/2014 07:53 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:

Hope all of you are enjoying the holidays.  Work Team 2 has added several ideas and requests that arrived after 21-Dec.  Draft v5.1 is attached, reflecting these changes:
CWG requests: IANA Stewardship CWG co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and Lise Fuhr requested 3 new accountability items in Category 1, Work Stream 1.   These 3 items are flagged as CWG (in red and bold)

David Johnson: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed a contract between ICANN and Registries & Registrars, with Registrants as 3rd party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when supported by consensus of affected parties.  Disputes go to independent arbitration panel that could issue binding decisions.  In a discussion with David, we thought the contract could work alongside the Member structure, not instead of it.

Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli noted support for four accountability items, but would place them in Work Stream 2 and suggested some wording changes.
Malcolm Hutty requested an item be moved to Work Stream 1: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its Bylaws, with effective remedy if breach found by independent adjudicator.”     Seun Ojedeji requested an alternative: “found by the community"
Daniel Castro of ITIF and Wisdom Donkor requested Open Data transparency rules, in Category 3, Work Stream 2.
Guru Achayra: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed an Accountability Contract between ICANN and ‘Contract Co.’ to replace the Affirmation of Commitments
Carlos Gutiérrez: requested 4 new prescribed actions in Category 3, Work Stream 2
Apologies if I have missed other suggestions.  Look forward to discussing on our next call.

—
<
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/>
+1.202.420.7482




_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141229/b74f2d27/attachment.html>