[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter

[Julie Hammer]

Thanks, Marika.  I have asked for this updated version to be the one circulated to SSAC for endorsement.

Cheers,  Julie

On 19 Aug 2014, at 2:09 am, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

This works for me.

Thanks

avri


On 18-Aug-14 11:27, Marika Konings wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> Based on the comments on the mailing list as well as initial feedback from
> the GNSO Council list, there is support for adding back in the sentence
> that was deleted in section II last paragraph of the scope section as
> pointed out by Chuck, namely: ""Accountability for the administration of
> the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability),
> however, is properly within the scope of this working group." For your
> convenience, please find attached a revised version of the charter that
> includes this sentence for distribution to your groups. Should any
> additional comments come in from your respective groups, you may want to
> relay these to the DT so it can be determined whether further changes are
> needed / desirable, noting that the further along the consideration of the
> charter by the different groups goes, the more time it may take to pull
> back the charter and incorporate possible changes to make sure all groups
> adopt the same version. As in this case it concerns a sentence that was
> probably inadvertantly deleted, hopefully it will not cause any major
> issues.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> On 14/08/14 18:15, "Byron Holland" <byron.holland at cira.ca> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>