[CCWG-ACCT] Defending and Protecting Work Stream 2

[Kieren McCarthy]

A quick question: who has the authority to form and disband this working
group?

Because one of the big problems identified in the past over ICANN
accountability and transparency has been the fact that when a report is
handed in, ICANN has decided that that group no longer exists.

And that has meant the ability to review or continue progress has been lost
until years later when another group is formed.

I have no doubt whatsoever that ICANN will push to have work stream 1
limited and to kill off work stream 2. The most effective way to do that
would be for the Board to simply declare this working group's work
completed.

Can it do that? What would this group do in response if it did?


Kieren
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:49 AM Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> There are at least two active discussions in the CCWG regarding items that
> are currently assigned to Work Stream 2.  In both cases, the "scope of
> work" to be accomplished in Work Stream 1 depends on Work Stream 2
> happening as we envision it.  This in turn depends on how well we defend,
> protect and ensure the existence of WS2 in the work we're doing now.
>
> I've been asked if I really believe that WS2 will happen.
>
> The Board's comments essentially suggested disbanding Work Stream 2 and
> re-assigning it to ICANN's efforts at "continuous improvement," which I
> take to mean the usual processes already in place for ICANN to engage in
> self-examination and improvement (reviews (e.g., ATRT and other AoC
> reviews), PDP and non-PDP working groups, expert working groups,
> staff-and-board initiatives, etc.).
>
> I know what the review and PDP workflow for the GNSO looks like and that
> would basically be the kiss of death (or at least an extended coma).  Work
> Stream 2 is a work stream of this CCWG, and it needs to stay that way, so
> that it stands apart from the usual business of self-improvement.  WS2 is
> basically a series of "IOU's" from WS1.
>
> Work Stream 2 was only allowed to exist in the first place because we
> agreed that WS1 would guarantee that WS2 went forward, even without the
> "leverage" of the upcoming transition.  This has to be absolutely
> re-confirmed and guaranteed in our work reflected in our next Report, and
> there needs to be consensus in the community (which includes the Board) on
> that point.
>
> If there is any doubt that WS2 is real and will proceed as planned -- if
> we are kidding ourselves and WS2 is basically nothing but a list of future
> chores to get around to at some point and under the usual methods -- if WS2
> is no more real than the Tooth Fairy or the Great Pumpkin -- if WS2 is just
> an attempt to mollify people -- let's just stop kidding ourselves, bring
> all the WS2 initiatives back into WS1, and deal with it as best we can.
>
> *We have two choices -- a real, robust and guaranteed Work Stream 2 for
> this group, or no Work Stream 2 at all.*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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/20151030/15b2d456/attachment.html>