[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter

Fri Aug 15 13:48:09 UTC 2014

Agreed. Good points of principle from Tijani but this may be a sensible
tweak to the document. Jonathan.

From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer
Sent: 15 August 2014 00:34
To: Tijani Benjemaa
Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter

Tijani,

Your point is a valid one and well made.  In general, I do agree with you.
Having said that, I have a suspicion that, in this specific case, a little
wordsmithing now may well avert objections and criticism of wording which
may delay the approval of this document downstream.

Cheers,  Julie

On 15 Aug 2014, at 8:29 am, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn>
wrote:

Why it is crucial to have the same wording as the ICG one???

We agreed on a charter after several iterations of drafting and update. We
fixed a deadline for last last update, and this deadline is passed. The
final document had the full consensus of the drafting team. There is no
reason we modify it.

If we continue like that, we will never finish modifying our charter.

So, my inclination is to keep the already agreed text without modification.

Tijani

-----Message d'origine-----
De : cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Byron Holland
Envoyé : jeudi 14 août 2014 17:15
À : Julie Hammer; Avri Doria
Cc : cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org
Objet : 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

  _____  

 <http://www.avast.com/> 

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant
parce que la protection  <http://www.avast.com/> Antivirus avast! est
active.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dt-stewardship/attachments/20140815/11e1a4e0/attachment-0001.html>