[CWG-Stewardship] Draft of Principles

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

While actual separation and the means of implementing that separation
may be solutions, I am strongly of the opinion that the potential to
separate MUST be a principle any solution is built on.  It may never be
exercised, but it would be unacceptable for there to be a solution that
prohibited or did not otherwise allow any possible future separation of
the function from ICANN.

This is one of several principles I feel I must personally argue for
persistently, and without which any solution would be unsatisfactory.

avri


On 05-Nov-14 10:45, Guru Acharya wrote:
> Avri,
>
> While I agree that separability should be a part of the solution, I don't
> think it can be made a principle.
>
> There are many who want IANA to perpetually reside in ICANN. They believe
> that self regulation will ensure accountability and that the need for
> separability does not exist.
>
> Therefore, separability may be a component of your solution rather than a
> principle for all solutions.
>
> Regards,
> Guru
> On 5 Nov 2014 04:00, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>  Hi,
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>>  a.       *Oversight, accountability and transparency*:  the service
>> should be accountable and transparent.
>>
>>
>> I see no reason to include the term 'oversight' here.
>>
>>                       i.      *Independence of oversight*:  Oversight
>> should be independent of the IANA functions operator and should assure the
>> accountability of the operator to the (inclusive) global multi-stakeholder
>> community;
>>
>>
>> I recommend removing this as a principle for the following reasons:
>>
>> a. I do not think oversight is a principle, but one possible solution to
>> the accountability issue.
>> b. if 'oversight' is a component of the solution, I do not understand how
>> it is independent of the stakeholders to whom ICANN is also accountable, so
>> the notion of 'Independence' is not a principle I understand in this case.
>> Yes any possible oversight mechanism should be independent of ICANN
>> corporate, but I do believe it is accountable to the same stakeholders as
>> is ICANN.
>>
>> I think we need a specific principle on accountability in this section:
>>
>> Accountability: Post transition accountability on the IANA Stewardship
>> function should be to the Internet stakeholder community.
>>
>> I also think we need to add a principle called separability
>>
>> Separability: In the event that the ICANN corporation, or any of its
>> subsidies, remains responsible for the IANA functions after the transition
>> of stewardship, it should remain possible for a well formed review and
>> contracting granting authority to reassign the IANA function to a new IANA
>> service provider(s).  The power of removing the function to a different
>> operator should persist through any future transfers of the the IANA
>> function(s)
>>
>> Under (c.) I recommend that we include the principle that service levels
>> be subject to independent audit, with results published for review by the
>> Internet community on an annual basis.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141105/d08e1a5b/attachment.html>