[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC

Wed Dec 31 18:36:40 UTC 2014

I think the primary problem with this approach is that accountability issues currently, not to mention in the hypothetical future have to do with more than scope creep. Everyone is up in arms about that issue in particular because of recent events but we need to think more broadly about what might happen in the future and come up with a true accountability mechanism, in WS1, and I content it will be DIFFICULT to get through the board but necessary. This isn't about what the board will accept, it's about what the community NEEDS for an accountable ICANN going forward.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 12:23 PM
To: Paul Rosenzweig
Cc: 'Brenda Brewer'; 'Accountability Cross Community'
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC

I support this proposal and believe having this dialogue with the board upfront will help us to know where to focus our work going forward.

We can debate where to draw the line, but I think many would find the current wording the Articles of Incorporation to be so vague and broad that it hasn't provided any form of backstop in the past to mission-creep and so must be narrowed and clarified.

Thanks,
Robin

On Dec 30, 2014, at 2:39 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

All

As a follow up to our discussion on today's call and in reference to my point that OUR work on accountability is highly dependent on what the Board/ICANN will or will not agree to, may I propose that our Chairs send to the Board and the ICANN CEO a communication roughly along the following lines:

The Cross-Community Working Group on accountability measures has been considering many accountability mechanisms to recommend concerning the prospective governance of ICANN.   Many members and participants in the CCWG have tentatively concluded that the nature and scope of the CCWG's recommendations  is dependent upon knowing whether or not the Board and ICANN will agree to certain fundamental limitations on Board authority.  Accordingly, the CCWG requests direct input from the Board and/or CEO on the following question:

"Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?

If the Board is fundamentally willing to accept such limitations then remaining accountability mechanisms may be reasonably limited to proposals that relate to the successful implementation of the IANA function itself.  If the Board and ICANN are, however, not willing to accept such limitations on their own authority then many members of the CCWG believe that accountability mechanisms proposed by the CCWG will need to be commensurately broadened."

I do not, of course, care terribly much about the specific language we use.  My goal, however, is to find a way to get Board input into our decision making at a point where it can significantly narrow (or substantially broadened) our field of consideration.

Perhaps more to the point, simply asking the question creates information - if the Board is unable or unwilling to answer at all (or if it answers in the negative) that would, in and of itself, justify the community in seeking a broader accountability package.  By contrast, if the Board answers affirmatively, then our task is much simpler - we need to reach consensus on the critical WS0 board control mechanisms and then add only the IANA function-related mechanisms we deem necessary.

So ... my proposal is simply that the Chairs of our WG find some way of both asking this question formally and getting a formal answer for us at the earliest practicable opportunity.

I wish everyone a very healthy and happy new year.

Warm regards
Paul

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>

From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 8:16 AM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Cc: Brenda Brewer
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC

Dear all,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the CCWG-Accountability call on 30 December at 19:00 UTC. I will send to call details to the Notify list.

Proposed Agenda:
1. Welcome & Roll Call & Statements of Interest
2. Membership Updates
3. Work Area Updates
WA1 - David Maher / Samantha Eisner
WA2 - Steve DelBianco
WA3 - Avri Doria
WA4 - Eric Brunner-Williams
4. Coordination between CWG and ICG
5. Expectations for the F2F
6. AOB
7. Closing Remarks
_______________________________________________
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/20141231/84db17ff/attachment.html>