[CWG-Stewardship] scope and accountability

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think two  issues are being confounded.

One is the dependency that any solution for stewardship can't go forward
until there is a response to ICANN accountability - this of course
assumes the function stays with ICANN.

The other is the aspects of the accountability aspects for IANA that are
part of the CWG work and that need to hold even if ICANN did not retain
the function for some reason.

While these are naturally linked, they are also different.  In terms of
names, we need to have accountability no matter who has the contract,
and we need to have ways to react if it isn't.  This I think was
discussed - at least it seemed as if it was while I was in remote
attendance.

While I was also not there but was on line for about 6 hours, I thought
they were working on the shape of the solution including accountabilty
issues for IANA.  I did not know  they discussed the first issue, which
I thought was predetermined, that until there is an ICANN accountability
solution, we cannot finalize the Stewardship transition.  But I still
have reading to catch up with.

avri


On 21-Nov-14 15:33, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141121/0cd4c51c/attachment.html>