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

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 31/12/2014 03:54, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Hello  Kavouss,
> 
>>> If the Board/ICANN will accept in WS1  a proposal 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.
> 
> In my personal view - this sounds reasonable in principle.

Previously, Avri wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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.

We need to be careful not to assume CWG-Stewardship has done more than
it has, or that this lessens our workload.

Firstly, the contractual relationship CWG-Stewardship are proposing only
concerns the operations of IANA. They have explicitly left consideration
of proposals to ensure the accountability of ICANN (including anything
to do with gTLD policy) to this group. So it would be dangerous to
assume that we don't need to consider something we might otherwise have
done on the basis that CWG-Stewardship has covered it.

Of course, it's open to us to build on what CWG-Stewardship have
proposed. We could, for example, come up with additional terms for the
contract, and propose that the MRT be responsible for overseeing and
enforcing those terms. But it will be up to us - not CWG-Stewardship -
to propose this.


Secondly, concerning the "separability" that Avri refers to, separation
of IANA from ICANN is a nuclear option. While I support this principle,
to be available as a last resort, it should BE the last resort, not the
first thing to which we turn. It shouldn't be used as a reason for this
group to do less to come up with mechanisms to resolve existing
problems, on the grounds that "if we end up being unhappy, we've still
got separability": we need mechanisms short of separation, because we
don't want to get in a situation where w're left with nothing but the
choice is between a bad outcome and separation (another bad outcome).

Finally, regarding Bruce's point about putting "most of the rest in
WS2", well, possibly. But we mustn't let this redefine the ambit of WS1:
anything which is fundamental to the accountability of ICANN, that can't
be added by the community later, needs to be in WS1.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA