[CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter

Fri Aug 22 02:23:02 UTC 2014

Hi,

That is great news.

Thanks

avri

On 21-Aug-14 17:25, Byron Holland wrote:
> Dear All - I just want to follow-up on the status of the charter.  Though I agree to reinserting the words "Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group" into the draft, I had already circulated the version without these to my council.  However, I am pleased to report that at our meeting this morning the ccNSO Council approved the charter and that these words were discussed and reinserted at that time.  So the version that Marika circulated on Monday is that which was approved by the ccNSO Council.  Could I ask the other SO/AC representatives send this version to their chairs with the news that it has been approved by the ccNSO Council.  I will undertake to send it to Heather Dryden, as chair of the GAC.  I would appreciate being kept informed of the status of the approval process in these other groups.  I also undertake to send it to representa!
 tives of
 the Internet protocols and addressing communities so that they might understand where we stand.
> 
> Finally, let we add my thanks and congratulations to the drafting team for your hard work in producing such a quality document in such a short period of time.  
> 
> 
> Byron
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org] 
> Sent: August-18-14 11:27 AM
> To: Byron Holland; Julie Hammer; Avri Doria
> Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 