[CWG-Stewardship] Comments on principles

[Fouad Bajwa]

And thats an important aspect to realize that ICANN is till registered
under US Law as a non-profit corporation??? That may bring us back to
that very old discussion that how is IANA impacted if it were to
remain under ICANN and its longstanding US non-profit laws abiding
situation? Opening offices around the world doesn't move ICANN out of
US Law bindings.

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think those are defined in the NTIA requirement with perhaps the biggest
> one being the no  governmental/intergovernmental replacement.
>
> Cheers!
>
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 23 Oct 2014 01:55, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is it possible to understand what are the boundaries or limits of the
>> IANA contract that should not be crossed at all in the transition
>> design? I am thinking from outward to inwards...
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty
>> > category
>> >
>> >
>> > the new Category is Separability.
>> >
>> > In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for the
>> > Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the
>> > contract
>> > for the function elsewhere.  This is the correlate of the IETF
>> > capability.
>> > Other principles such as stabilty  mean this can't just happen willy
>> > nilly,
>> > but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen.  Or
>> > perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has.  while there are several
>> > ways to
>> > do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and
>> > the
>> > means.
>> >
>> > And the new bullets in accountability
>> >
>> > - There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress.
>> > Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical
>> > system
>> > or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be
>> > an
>> > accessible and relaible mean of redress.
>> >
>> > - We need to decide to whom it is accountable.  The stakeholders?  The
>> > policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users?
>> > Accountabilty
>> > must be accountabilty to someone.  I beleive it is the stakeholders, but
>> > that probably needs to be further defined.  Do we mean the multiplicity
>> > of
>> > stakeholder groups ICANN has?  Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of
>> > stakeholders?  Some other model?
>> >
>> >
>> > The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of
>> > solution we might come up with.
>> >
>> > thanks
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>> _______________________________________________
>> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa