[CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2

[Drazek, Keith]

Dear Co-Chairs,

NTIA has posed some very legitimate questions and I expect the CCWG will assess and address them as part of our ongoing community consensus-building process. This is healthy and in no way detracts from our work to date.

Our final consensus recommendation will be more refined and defensible thanks to the questions received from NTIA and the ICANN Board. I understand we may also receive questions this week from the GAC. We should welcome and address them all.

Regarding the need to get it done and done right....last October in Los Angeles, NTIA and ICANN together recommended bifurcation of our work into WS-1 and WS-2 to enable our ability to meet their preferred transition timelines. That's exactly what we've embraced and exactly what we should strive to deliver. The latest timeline (as described this morning by Fadi) anticipates finalization and approval of the CCWG WS-1 around the Dublin ICANN meeting in late October...4 months from now. We should be able to deliver a proposal by that date that meets the community's needs and NTIA's criteria.

Upon further reflection, it strikes me that our colleague may, in fact, prefer the IANA stewardship transition not happen at all. If memory serves, we have yet to receive a constructive recommendation or substantive contribution from him.  Under what specific circumstances would he consider the transition appropriate or desirable? What exactly does "get it right" mean to our colleague?  Would a Board-approved FOI for ccTLDs address any of our colleagues' opaque but persistent concerns?

Regards,
Keith


On Jun 22, 2015, at 6:11 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na<mailto:el at lisse.na>> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

he's wrong. As usual.

We need to get it right. Not get it done.

Never mind that Strickling has pronounced himself very clearly and repeatedly.

el

--
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jun 22, 2015, at 17:24, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org<mailto:JZuck at actonline.org>> wrote:

I certainly agree with your interpretation, Jordan. The pressing nature of the transition dictates we limit our function to empowering the community and not trying to solve every challenge of ICANN accountability. There’s a great deal that can and should be done to improve the accountability of the organization as a whole including operational improvements and metrics, facilitating periodic participation in policy development and greater use of data in policy development as well as establishing a culture of continuous improvement (working on those two!).

But we can't do that in WS1

Jonathan Zuck
President
ACT: The App Association
http://Www.ACTonline.org

From: Jordan Carter<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎June‎ ‎22‎, ‎2015 ‎5‎:‎19‎ ‎PM
To: Accountability CCWG<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>

Hi all

I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-)

One is something I wanted to test others' views on.

Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work.

Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc.

I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff.

But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.

To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.

So: my interpretation has always been as follows:

Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.

To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.

Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?

Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb!


thanks
Jordan




[1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_intervention/

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet

_______________________________________________
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/20150623/879679d0/attachment.html>