[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
Gomes, Chuck
cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Aug 14 16:26:25 UTC 2014
Replacing the first sentence with the new wording looks fine to me but I would have liked to have retained the last sentence to make sure there is no question about accountability being in scope: "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group."
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Byron Holland
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:15 PM
To: Julie Hammer; Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
I was about to hit 'send' to circulate the draft charter to my council. But seeing these comments, and being in agreement with them, I have taken the liberty of replacing our paragraph under 'Relationship to ICANN Accountability Review Process' with the words used by the ICG. I have attached both a 'track changes' version and a 'clean' version.
But now I must really send this out to my council.
Byron
-----Original Message-----
From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer
Sent: August-14-14 10:31 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
Hi Avri,
Thanks for the feedback and sorry to hear you've been getting a hard time.
Re Milton's comments about our wording, I agree that the ICG Charter is essentially saying the same thing that we are, but probably more eloquently. If there is strong feeling about our language, I would not object to using the same (probably better language) as the ICG in our CWG charter.
Cheers, Julie
On 14 Aug 2014, at 11:54 pm, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
_______________________________________________
CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-DT-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship
More information about the CWG-DT-Stewardship
mailing list