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

[Robert Guerra]

+1

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150218/047129b1/attachment.html>