[CCWG-ACCT] ISTACC call 2015-04-15
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
leonfelipe at sanchez.mx
Thu Apr 16 03:41:44 UTC 2015
The question on the foundation of the USG to manage the root zone was put for consideration of the legal Subteam on its call of April 8 (which I didn’t attend).
Attached is thePDF of the call’s transcript and on page 26 you will be able to see that the question was considered to be out of scope from our working group as it was considered that it not only isn’t a WS1 matter but also not considered as an accountability related topic.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Transcript CCWG ACCT LEGAL SubTeam 8 April-3.pdf
Size: 281260 bytes
Desc: not available
-------------- next part --------------
> El 15/04/2015, a las 16:41, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na> escribió:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Dear Co-Chairs,
> we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two
> issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager
> For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others
> provided for context):
> This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking
> place alongside a parallel and related process on the
> transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through
> the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
> on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).
> The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements
> required for the continuance of IANA functions in an
> accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of
> the IANA Functions Contract.
> Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions
> (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not
> within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being
> dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.
> Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and
> interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their
> Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or
> should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that
> effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I
> believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the
> functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the
> decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not
> recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.
> I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie
> how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is
> or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue
> should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff
> leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts.
> That would also be operational.
> But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the
> actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to
> address this.
> And I find that starting at the beginning helps.
> Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to
> how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to
> make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but
> not necessarily only them.
> The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond,
> borders on the deliberate.
> It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair",
> by the way :-)-O
> And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really
> would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he
> referred to so eloquently.
> I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.
> greetings, el
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community