[CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison from the Board to CWG)

[Milton L Mueller]

> 
> Yes, and what I'm arguing is that, as a practical matter, what we should do is
> pick the very minimum we can, because it's nearly the end of February and
> this WG was supposed to have finished already.  So, specifying the necessary
> and sufficient conditions of accountability necessary for the transition, and
> _not_ specifying how those conditions are to be achived (leaving that for a
> WG that is busy working on exactly those issues) seems to me to be a
> pragmatic approach.
> 


I'm sorry Andrew, but you are attempting to disguise substantive arguments in the form of practical considerations. I, for one, am not fooled. In this case, you are saying that we can ignore the whole issue of separability and the accountability that comes from a contracting model, and rely instead on the accountability reforms of the CCWG. That is exactly the argument that advocates of an internal to ICANN model ave been making from the beginning. 

In effect, you are simply arguing for an internal model, but you do not even want us to specify what accountability mechanisms need to go with it. So you argyments are actually worse than the ones put forward by, e.g., Disspain or ALAC. 

If you want to argue for or against specific models and requirements for the IANA transition, please do so honestly and directly. That way we can debate the merits and perhaps reach consensus. Obfuscating the real issues with artificial practical constraints won't work.

The idea that CCWG will be faster is an assumption that may or may not be supported in reality. And the idea that implementing CCWG reforms will be quicker than CWG proposals that involve structural separation is a real whopper.