[CWG-Stewardship] Narrow focus (was: CWG-Stewardship Chairs' Statement - Summary of ICANN 52 Meeting)

[Greg Shatan]

Andrew,

I don't think you are off your gourd.

Greg

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 05:06:25AM -0800, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > There are a few signs that ICANN corporate is being a little more open
> minded and helpful than in most of the previous SEVEN accountability
> reviews (but not all).
> >
> > But when it comes to non-cosmetic changes, particularly over ICANN
> corporate's unquestionable final authority, I have seen only critical and
> defensive responses, as well as accusations of bad faith and various
> efforts to undermine the commenter - the same pattern that has played out
> for over a decade.
> >
>
> This is not to pick on Kieren McCarthy, but those paragraphs where
> helpful to hang my remarks on.  I've been thinking about something
> along these lines since Singapore and thought I'd take this occasion
> to send.
>
> It seems to me that we heard in Singapore some pretty strong
> suggestions from parts of the community that we ought to concentrate
> on the narrow question of the IANA transition and how to make those
> arrangements at least as reliable and safe as the current arrangements
> are.  In my opinion, Larry Strickling also asked some pretty pointed
> questions about this group's focus on that narrow issue.
>
> It seems to me that the IETF and RIRs have come up with fairly narrow
> discussions of their issues, and have focussed on the specific issues
> for their communities.  I do not pretend that things are just the same
> in the names community, because of the way the IANA names functions
> and the policy functions are located in the same organization.  But
> perhaps we could focus on the exact places where the existing
> organizational boundaries inside ICANN (for the IANA function) are,
> and see whether there is a sort of "accountability interface" that
> could be placed there.  This is an admittedly less ambitious approach
> than the proposals that have been previously circulated, but I wonder
> whether this might not cut the problem down to a manageable size.  It
> seems to me that much of the conceptual work that has been done could
> be re-jigged to match that narrower task, too, and so we might be able
> to make speedy progress.
>
> Of course, that still leaves us with a difficult dependency, because
> the CCWG-Accountability work would need to complete and be compatible
> with what we might suggest.  But I think that is manageable, it's in
> any case a requirement, and it allows us to declare general
> discussions of, "wWhat if the Board does X?" out of scope here.
>
> Does this seem in any way a helpful direction, or am I off my gourd?
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>



-- 

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner* *| IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150218/c1fe5ab9/attachment-0001.html>