[CCWG-ACCT] Update of document on definition & scope

Sat Mar 14 01:56:26 UTC 2015

Thank you Mathieu and everyone who has worked on this document.

This is a bit wordy and is basically thinking aloud for sharing a
perspective with colleagues here in the CCWG.

I've read the paper a couple of times over this morning and in thinking
about the whole of our work, and our links with the CWG's work, I have been
mulling on the following question:

How can stakeholders assure themselves of having the means to hold ICANN to
account, following the end of the IANA contract?

This comes to an underlying question of "who should have the power?"

Is this "power" question our paper should address more explicitly?

Is it a question we could ask of the advisors?

It's a question that seems implicit in the document and in much of the
detail we've been working on (in both workstreams), and in some of the
debates that have been complicating the CWG's work.

If you look at all this across the whole scope of ICANN's role, the
protocol and numbers communities are saying "we have the power" as
stakeholders - that's why their transition proposals include contracts/MOUs
with ICANN as the service provider of the IANA functions.

Names hasn't decided yet, but the CWG is working on that question in
respect of IANA.

For our CCWG, a question we have to answer about ICANN's general
accountability is "who has the power to hold the corporation to account?"
In doing so, we won't be able to ignore the question of whether this can be
done entirely within ICANN's structures, or whether a wider set of
structures is needed.

That's the issue that underpins debates like:

- should the power to remove the ICANN Board be vested in a community
grouping, or simply be a procedure followed by ICANN bodies, and anyway is
either option available under California law?

- does the IANA stewardship transition for names need an external trust or
contract co to make accountability work?

I wonder whether this paper deals explicitly enough with the question of
power.

I looked at the NetMundial text in particular and wonder about the fact
that most of the stakeholders in the multistakeholder environment are
accountable to someone - members, or stakeholders, or national governments,
or shareholders, whatever. Most of the global institutions are either
state-based or connected to such (e.g. the IGF), or have various sorts of
membership structures. These linkages keep them all accountable in one way
or another.

The global organisations that don't have this seem to be things like FIFA
or the International Olympic Committee.... entities that don't hold
positive lessons for us in designing a post-NTIA-contract settlement for
ICANN, except perhaps as warnings to us about what doesn't work.

Anyhow, food for thought perhaps.

best
Jordan

On 13 March 2015 at 22:32, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:

>  Thank you, Mathieu -
> The documents may be found at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Drafts+for+CCWG-Accountability
> Kind regards
> Alice
>
>   From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>
> Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:55 AM
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, Alice Jansen <
> alice.jansen at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update of document on definition & scope
>
>  Dear Colleagues,
>
> Attached is the latest version taking into account Robin's inputs.
>
> Alice, can you update the wiki please ?
>
> Best
> Mathieu
>
> Le 07/03/2015 00:59, Robin Gross a écrit :
>
> Hello Mathieu,
>
> Thanks very much for this excellent document.  I've made a few suggested edits in the redlined version (attached).
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>
>
>  Dear Colleagues,
>
> As you will remember, our draft document was circulated to the Advisors for feedback after our meeting in Frankfurt. You will find the latest version attached, both in edit as well as clean mode.
>
> The document has benefitted from substantial and very well documented input from Advisors, and I believe it now provides a solid basis for our future report and call for comments. In the name of the co-chairs, I want to express our gratitude to all contributors.
>
> The various versions will be added to the Wiki shortly.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
> <20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.docx><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.docx>_______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> --
> *****************************
> Mathieu WEILL
> AFNIC - directeur général
> Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
> *****************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

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

*A better world through a better Internet *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150314/2245f15b/attachment.html>