[CWG-Stewardship] Question for Sidley

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 02:26:02PM +0000, Martin Boyle wrote:
> 
> I’m actually quite happy with looking to include much of the IANA functions operator accountability mechanisms under an enhanced ICANN accountability regime.  In my mind this has one crucial element in it – that the stakeholders are present in ICANN already and accountability is to them.  Move it somewhere else and the stakeholders have another organisation to watch.
> 

Just to make sure we're in agreement (I assume we are, but best to
check), you mean the names-community stakeholders, and not all the
IANA stakeholders, right?

Assuming so, then this is a good point.  The IETF has (and it appears
the RIRs want) one mechanism for accountability, which is the ability
to end the agreement and have someone else perform those functions.
(Moreover, the RIRs of course do have a formal presence within ICANN,
in the ASO.)  But if the names community is not to get such an option
(I don't know whether it could be negotiated in time), then it could
be argued that it would be easier for the names community to provide
oversight of one organization than of two.

This does, however, have the negative effect that IANA itself remains
entangled with the policy organization.  It seems to me that some of
those who are worried are mostly worried about that entanglement.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com