<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>
<div>
<div>Bruce, </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the Singapore meeting just after the IANA transition was announced, many in the community raised concern that ICANN would have no external accountability once the organization was no longer at-risk of losing the IANA contract.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Secretary Strickling acknowledged that the IANA contract provided ‘discipline’ over ICANN, beyond its execution of the IANA functions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That is the reason we established this CCWG — to enhance ICANN’s overall accountability to the community.</div>
</div>
<div>—</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE">
<div>
<div>Steve</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:12pt; text-align:left; color:black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Bruce Tonkin<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 12:14 AM<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Accountability Cross Community<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Additional Stress Tests to discuss<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Hello Steve,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding Street test #24 – you note that the NTIA could cancel its contract with ICANN if ICANN were to broaden its scope by changing its strategic plan when a new CEO is appointed. I can see that the community might want to be able to override the
Board if it went outside of its mandate, but for the IANA functions I would assume this is only an issue if it meant that ICANN was no longer performing to the standards in the IANA contract. I.e. I don’t see this as directly connected to the NTIA transferring
stewardship of IANA – but I do see that it fits into the ICANN accountability discussion. I see this as a bit of a common thread in discussions on the IANA transition – i.e. the “threat” that NTIA will cancel the contract if ICANN does something the community
doesn’t like that is unrelated to the IANA function. To me NTIA is ensuring through the IANA contract that the IANA technical functions are performed to the standard expected of the community – nothing more. The NTIA does not have any over-ride/veto
powers on the strategic plan., and the US Government is a stakeholder in the ICANN community in the development of the strategic plan like everyone else.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is one of the reasons why the Board recommended that CCWG operate as a separate initiative to look at ways to improve accountability, and ensure that ICANN's strategic plan is in accordance with the wishes of the community.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Bruce Tonkin</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>_______________________________________________</div>
<div>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</div>
<div><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></div>
<div><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>