<html>
<body>
I am somewhat troubled by all of the items in WS1 where I do not see the
direct link to the IANA transition (even if the IANA transition was
directly to ICANN without the intervening Contract Co.)<br><br>
Note I am not saying that they might not be perfectly valid and desirable
accountability mechanism, just that I do not see the direct link, and
thus perhaps greatly increasing our work to be done to allow
transition.<br><br>
I do understand that it may be easier to get some of these accepted if
done in association with WS1, but if we make our WS1 task too
all-inclusive, it may not get done at all.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 28/12/2014 07:53 PM, Steve DelBianco wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hope all of you are enjoying the
holidays. Work Team 2 has added several ideas and requests that
arrived after 21-Dec. Draft v5.1 is attached, reflecting these
changes:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>CWG requests: IANA Stewardship CWG co-chairs Jonathan Robinson and
Lise Fuhr requested 3 new accountability items in Category 1, Work Stream
1. These 3 items are flagged as
<font color="#FF0000">CWG</b></font> (in red and bold)<br><br>
</dl><br>
<dl>
<dd>David Johnson: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed a contract
between ICANN and Registries & Registrars, with Registrants as 3rd
party beneficiaries. Contract lets ICANN impose rules on others only when
supported by consensus of affected parties. Disputes go to
independent arbitration panel that could issue binding decisions.
In a discussion with David, we thought the contract could work alongside
the Member structure, not instead</u> of it.<br><br>
<br>
<dd>Izumi Okutani and Athina Fragkouli noted support for four
accountability items, but would place them in Work Stream 2 and suggested
some wording changes.<br><br>
<dd><font face="Calibri">Malcolm Hutty requested an item be moved to Work
Stream 1: "Ensure that the ICANN Board can be held to its Bylaws,
with effective remedy if breach found by independent
adjudicator.” Seun Ojedeji requested an
alternative: “found by the community"<br>
</font><br>
<dd>Daniel Castro of ITIF and Wisdom Donkor requested Open Data
transparency rules, in Category 3, Work Stream 2.<br><br>
<dd>Guru Achayra: For Category 1, Work Stream 1, proposed an
Accountability Contract between ICANN and ‘Contract Co.’ to replace
the Affirmation of Commitments<br><br>
<dd>Carlos Gutiérrez: requested 4 new prescribed actions in Category 3,
Work Stream 2<br><br>
</dl>Apologies if I have missed other suggestions. Look forward to
discussing on our next call.<br><br>
<br>
<<br>
Steve DelBianco<br>
Executive Director<br>
NetChoice<br>
<a href="http://www.netchoice.org/">http://www.NetChoice.org</a> and
<a href="http://blog.netchoice.org/">http://blog.netchoice.org</a><br>
+1.202.420.7482<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>