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

Mon Dec 29 14:20:14 UTC 2014

With respect, I think it is a mistake to look to the current entity as a guide for what we want to replace … mostly because much (if not all) of the actual control exercised by NTIA is through deterrence and its existence as a check rather than through formal controls.  It can do that because, candidly, it is an instrument of a very powerful government with many non-contractual tools at its disposal to influence events.  When the IANA function transitions, the accountability will be to the community at large – a much broader, more diffuse institution.  It will have some power of the non-contractual sort but it will be exceedingly difficult to mobilize that power and use it.  As a result, the accountability with which we replace IANA has to be bas3ed on much more formal processes that effectively institutionalize control. 

I think Avri is exactly right – the solution set is binary.  If the Board/ICANN will accept in WS1 a proposl for a strong contractual boundary on what they may do along with an external mechanism that can be invoked by the community to police that boundary, then most of the other accountability can be in WS2.  But my current understanding is that the Board/ICANN will not accept such a proposal – indeed when I last spoke of it to a Board member, I was told it was “unnecessary.”  And we have seen that ICANN sometimes has ambitions to do more than IANA – witness the proposal to spend money on broadband expansion.  [I support expansion – but not through ICANN :)]

In the absence of a commitment to adopt a legally binding mechanism for limiting ICANN activities to IANA, and =only= IANA, WS1 needs to be much more comprehensive.  The risk is that the functionality transitions without any such limitation, in which case we will have traded one body of guardians at NTIA for an even more Plantonic guardian group at the Board.

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: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com] 
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
>>> +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/ce2a8d47/attachment.html>