[CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2: Comments based on impressions from Meeting Notes.

[Steve DelBianco]

Siva — Back in December, we gathered consensus around this rationale between WS1 and WS2:

Proposed rationale for designating Work Streams: (updated to reflect discussion thru 12-Jan)
Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that must be in place or committed to, before IANA transition occurs.

WS1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance Icann's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter Icann management resistance or if it were against the interest of Icann as a corporate entity.

All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided the mechanisms in WS1 are adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.

The legal team’s formulation between WS1 and WS2 legal questions fits with that proposal.

—
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/>
+1.703.615.6206



From: Sivasubramanian M
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:54 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2: Comments based on impressions from Meeting Notes.

Hello


I was not present for the Legal Sub Team call https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891852 on 10th March and have not listened to the recording either. This comment is based on the Introductory section of the Meeting Notes, which might not be points discussed at length during the Sub Team meeting, quoted below, and raised here as a point to consider by the whole group:

Notes:  2. Brief Discussion:

  *   WS2 - no need to be in place before transition takes place but needs to take place post transition.

Three items need to be put in place as part of WS1.

  *   Recalling members of the ICANN board of directors.

  *   Community empowerment over ICANN’s management.

  *   Limiting the scope of ICANN’s activity.

  *

One of the several proposals for Work Stream 2 was based on the rationale that pre-transition changes to the Accountability framework is minimal with major improvements to discussed and carried out on an ongoing basis post transition.

With almost zero discussion on Work Stream 2, without even the formation of work stream 2, it is highly undesirable to think of such changes to the Accountability framework as the inclusion of provisions to recall members of the Board, limiting the scope of ICANN's activity or even Community empowerment over ICANN management.

Within a well-considered and larger Accountability environment such changes could be effected in phases, in tune with a larger and clearer blue print, but without even a beginning on such a blue print, it is unwise to think of the changes as proposed for WS1. These provisions, if included pre-transition and in a rush, could prove counter productive.

I would propose the bare minimal improvements to the Accountability framework, if such improvements are to be made in a rush. At best, WS 1 could discuss such changes but leave it for implementation post transition, after more elaborate thinking.

Sivasubramanian M



Sivasubramanian M<https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150312/45251525/attachment.html>