[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter

[Avri Doria]

On 13-Aug-14 10:46, Allan MacGillivray wrote:
> Milton Mueller has even characterized it as being ‘impressive’ 
> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>.  Congratulations to everyone 
> who worked on it.


Perhaps, but he is slamming me for it now.  Indicating that we missed a
chance to link the CWG to the Transparency work.

> I am wondering why this statement on accountability seems to assume 
> that there is "no linkage" between ICANN accountability and IANA 
> accountability, when, in fact, there is.
> 
> "Any linkages between the work of the CWG on the IANA transition and 
> the broader ICANN Accountability Review Process with regard to ICANN 
> policy are outside the scope of this group's work. Accountability
> for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation
> and operational accountability), however, is properly within the
> scope of this working group."
> 
> The ICG charter handled this relationship in a much better way:
> 
> " The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside
> a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability.
> While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier
> governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is
> focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA
> functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the
> expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes
> are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately
> coordinate their work."


I have argued:

> 
> I think they both say a similar thing.
> 
> - the greater ICANN accountability is seperate - accountability
> related to IANA is in scope

and
> 
> On 13-Aug-14 17:32, Dan Krimm wrote:

>> So, if one accepts as true the notion that each jurisdiction's
>> results will affect the other jurisdiction significantly, then even
>> if the specific working groups have narrow scope of authority and
>> jurisdiction, they still ought to be talking to each other along
>> the way, perhaps cross-pollinating each other with ideas and
>> monitoring each others' progress.
> 
> 
> I do.  I think that making IANA accountability part of the CWG's work
> it accepts the challenge of coordinating them. And maybe even going
> further than passive coordination.
> 
> Another point, is that IANA accountability is what counts in this
> case, and while unlikely that some entity other than ICANN will end
> up ultimately responsible for IANA, the accountability requirements
> for that function stand separate and should apply to whatever entity
> ends up responsible, next year or in 10 years. As such this group
> could come up with requirements that do not immediately fall inside
> whatever it is we end up doing about ICANN accountability - remember
> the note we just sent about the ICANN accountability processes
> seeming rigged.
> 
> This is a good topic for discussion, and should be brought up in the 
> GNSO council discussions by our council members (myself included) if
> we continue to find it  problematic.


and repsonse from Milton

> The statement of the ICG is even stronger than Dan suggests. We said:
> 
> 
> "the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should
> appropriately coordinate their work."
> 
> This is not just "talking to each other" and "cross pollinating, it
> suggests that they are interdependent and thus should coordinate. An
> extreme example of such interdependency and coordination would be to
> not complete the transition until certain commitments are made on the
> broader accountability process. I am afraid the CWG charter sets up
> the false notion that the two things are completely detached and
> separate processes, which is exactly what ICANN wants and exactly
> what advocates of accountability don't want.
> 
> I don't understand why Avri is not seeing this and offering apologias
> for the oversight in the CWG charter.


cheers,

avri