[CWG-Stewardship] scope and accountability

[Gomes, Chuck]

Let me elaborate a little more now that I am on my laptop and not just my phone.

First of all, because I was also not in Frankfurt nor able to participate much remotely and have not yet had time to review the results of the F2F in detail, my initial thoughts need to be taken in that context.

But to the extent that the recommendations that came out of the F2F meeting do not reflect a strong requirement that the IANA Transition should not happen before broader independent ICANN Accountability mechanisms are assured, then I believe that they ignore one of the clear requirements that that the community in near unanimity stated in public comments and dialog.  And I also think that the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG Charter allowed for connection of the two separate work efforts in that way.

That said, I will try to catch up in the next few days.  And I believe that we have plenty of time now to correct this if in fact it is not reflected sufficiently in the F2F results.

Finally, regardless of the above, I want to thank and compliment all of those who worked very long and hard in the F2F meeting.  You had a huge task in an extremely short timeframe and I am confident that you produced draft recommendations that the community can now review, comment and improve.

Chuck

From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:41 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; 'jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com'
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] scope and accountability

I have the same concern as Milton.


Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r) 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>
Date:11/20/2014 6:17 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "'jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com'" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>
Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] scope and accountability
Jonathan
I've been reading the transcripts of the Frankfurt meeting. Sorry I couldn't be there to correct what I saw as an oversight or error in the discussion. Although others committed the same error, it was most concisely expressed in a quote from you, so that's why I am picking on you ;-) You said:

"Then there's the broader ICANN accountability issue, which I think is beyond the remit of this committee and into the next working group, except to the extent it deals with accountability for IANA functions."

This implies that IANA accountability and ICANN accountability are two completely separate things. The problem is that they are interrelated. This interdependency is explicitly recognized in the ICG's charter:

"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."

Of course the IANA transition process cannot fix all the accountability issues in ICANN's policy making process, nor do we want it to. But "interrelated and interdependent" means that how we handle accountability in the IANA transition will have direct impact on the enhanced accountability process for the rest of ICANN. As a simple example, if the IANA transition merely hands over control of IANA to ICANN with no oversight or separability whatsoever, then the enhanced accountability CWG will have a _lot_ more urgent work to do, especially in track 1. On the other hand, if the IANA transition process allows the community to take IANA away from a misbehaving ICANN, or otherwise leverages the control of IANA to ensure that ICANN complies with certain good governance requirements, then the IANA transition has implications for ICANN accountability, not just IANA accountability.

The clear intent of the ICG charter is to recognize that both ICANN and IANA accountability are related. The creation of two tracks in the ICANN accountability CWG - one that must be completed before the IANA transition is effectuated and the other involving reforms that can wait until after the transition - is another explicit recognition of the interdependency of the IANA and ICANN accountability. The simple fact is that the IANA transition process _must_ take into account the broader implications of its proposed changes for the overall accountability of ICANN.

I hope the CWG Frankfurt meeting's failure to recognize the interdependency  this did not prevent it from making progress in other areas.

Milton L Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141121/6deb52d0/attachment-0001.html>