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

Mon Dec 29 14:20:42 UTC 2014

Hi,

Of course, but still that might make it a WS2 task.

I am just trying to point out a consideration from the other track.

avri

On 29-Dec-14 08:37, Jonathan Zuck wrote:
>
> Of course, the use of a contract is a bit of a blunt instrument of
> accountability absent some structure for transactional checks and
> balances. Let’s not miss the opportunity to replace it with something
> more operational while we’re at it.
>
>  
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Seun Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Monday, December 29, 2014 1:37 AM
> *To:* avri
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2:
> draft 5.1
>
>  
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 29 Dec 2014 06:43, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org
> <mailto: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>
> [mailto: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.â€      Seun Ojedeji
> requested an alternative: â€œfound 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 â€˜Contract Co.â€™ to
> replace the Affirmation of Commitments
> >>>
> >>> Carlos GutiÃ©rrez: 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
> <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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/fc392f7e/attachment.html>