[Area 2] Updated draft 3 for Work Area 2

Mon Dec 15 15:38:17 UTC 2014

Hi Steve,
Thank you for this draft.
If I understand well, among those 250 ideas, all those focusing on IANA functions were skipped because they are considered as out of scope
of  this CCWG (and I agree).
In that situation it makes our work challenging because the need to put in place those remaining  accountability mechanisms before the IANA transition occurs is based on some indirect consequences and is easily questionable.
In addition, I understand that there are mechanisms that are required to force others items considered as WS 2. It means that those elements have a higher priority or should be implemented before others, but  it don’t necessary means that they fall in WS1 category.

As a conclusion, in order to better understand why some items are in WS1 and others in WS2 may be we should add a column with the rationale (why there is a link with the IANA transition,  what that  link is,  for every  WS1 items).
Regards
Alain

De : ccwg-accountability2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ccwg-accountability2-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Steve DelBianco
Envoyé : dimanche 14 décembre 2014 23:05
À : ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org
Objet : [Area 2] Updated draft 3 for Work Area 2

In this draft, I have merely re-arranged the accountability suggestions, into 3 sections:

1. Mechanisms to give the community authority over the ICANN corporation
2. Mechanisms to prescribe or restrict actions of the ICANN corporation
3. Mechanisms to ensure transparency of the ICANN corporation and the broader community

I presume staff will post this version to our Wiki so that all CCWG colleagues can review before our call on Tuesday.   Both a pdf and Word doc are attached.

--Steve

On 12/12/14, 8:30 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>> wrote:

Thanks to Malcolm Hutty for his edits today.  And thanks to Marika Konings for sharing a staff summary<https://community.icann.org/x/nCbxAg> of accountability proposals taken from the public comment period.  This made our job much easier.

That staff document had about 250 ideas.  I skipped those focusing on IANA functions since that is out of our CCWG scope. I skipped items that were just comments on current accountability.  About 100 of the items were consolidated into the second draft of our deliverable (attached).

Our current draft list is very manageable, at under 2 pages.   Mathieu suggests we eventually add tags so that related items can be grouped together (e.g.,   “Checks and Balances”, “Review”, Redress”, etc.)

Per a question from Mathieu, I propose this rationale to designate whether in work stream 1 or 2:
 Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancements that must be in-place or firmly committed before IANA transition occurs.  All other items are Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.

How does that sound to you?

Please review and comment over the weekend, so we can send to our colleagues on Monday morning.  Feel free to add accountability mechanisms that were suggested earlier this year, even if outside of ICANN’s public comment forum.

As I noted earlier, we are tasked now just to give a starting point of accountability enhancement suggestions. Our entire CCWG will surely develop more enhancements over the course of our work.

—Steve

On 12/12/14, 5:08 AM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>> wrote:

Thanks for volunteering to help with Work Area 2: to Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2.

Our deliverable (by Monday) is a list of items that have been suggested, and identify whether these belong in WS1 or WS2.

As our rapporteur, I drafted a format that might be useful to our working group colleagues. And I filled-in about a page of items to show how this format could work.  (attached)

There are around 70 comments in the two comment periods we need to examine.  Not every comment includes suggested accountability mechanisms.  The process I recommend is:
First, scan the comment and for any accountability suggestion,and see if there’s already a similar item in the list/table.  If so, add the comment source under the Source column (Google, BC, etc.)   If not in the list yet, add the row and the source.

Second, Indicate whether this accountability item should be required before the IANA contract is relinquished (WS1).  If it can wait until after transition, it goes into Work Stream 2 (WS2)

Finally, add a hyperlink to the comment at the bottom of our document, so readers can find it easily.

Make sense?  Now, how to divide the work?

I suggest that Paul Rosenzweig, Jordan Carter, and I go thru the 53 submissions in the Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/>, 7-May thru 30-Jul, 2014.

Could we have a few others volunteer to go thru the second set of comments?   There are 21 submissions in the Public comments on enhancing ICANN Accountability<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06sep14/index.html#00014>, 6-Sep thru 13-Oct, 2014

Ideas welcome!

—
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org<http://www.netchoice.org/> and http://blog.netchoice.org<http://blog.netchoice.org/>
+1.202.420.7482

On 12/11/14, 5:11 AM, "Grace Abuhamad" <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>> wrote:

Work Area 2: Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2
Deliverable: list of items that have been suggested and identify whether these belong in WS1, WS2 or both.
Coordinator/Rapporteur: Steve DelBianco
Volunteers:
·         Jordan Carter
·         Leon Sanchez

Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw
Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org>
Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/attachments/20141215/3f3040bb/attachment-0001.html>