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

[Seun Ojedeji]

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 29 Dec 2014 06:43, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> And that presupposes that the CSG-Stewardship WG won't stick with the
principle of separability in its recommended solution.
>
> If it does stick with separability then a contractual relationship
remains as an ongoing leverage point. In terms of CWG-Stewardship work,
Contract Co holding the contract, still appears to be quite active as a
proposal.
>
While I won't attempt start discussing contract co approach in details
here, I will just say that since we are speaking of ICANN accountability,
then it becomes a thing of relevance to discuss the accountability aspect
of contract co (if this cwg is considering it as an option).

> Perhaps we need to look at the WS1 list in terms of the binary
discriminant: is there an ongoing contractual relationship with an eternal
entity or not.  I expect the WS1 list will vary based on which of these is
being considered.
>
Well if we have the time for this, that's fine. However, while asking that
question, let's also be sure to review the characteristics of the current
external entity in considering a replacement (which is where accountability
of such entity comes in the picture)

Regards
> avri
>
>
>
> On 28-Dec-14 22:57, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>>
>> 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 and http://blog.netchoice.org
>>> +1.202.420.7482
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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/20141229/0b95cd8d/attachment.html>