[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter

Julie Hammer julie.hammer at bigpond.com
Thu Aug 14 20:48:45 UTC 2014 

I also agree with Chuck to retain the last sentence.

Cheers,  Julie

On 15 Aug 2014, at 2:36 am, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

i agree with this.

avri


On 14-Aug-14 12:26, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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