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

[Alan Greenberg]

Then we will agree to disagree. The CWG has responsibility for 
accountability related to the direct operational aspects of the IANA 
Function. WS1 of the CCWG explicitly refers to the ICANN 
accountability necessary to fulfill the transition. There is nothing 
in the current plans of the CCWG that explicitly EXCLUDES any ICANN 
accountability measure if IANA happens to be involved.

Moreover, the CWG Co-Chairs have indicated that as ICANN 
accountability issues are identified, they should be put on the CCWG plate.

Alan

At 22/02/2015 05:21 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>I'll have to disagree with that Alan. There has been a clear 
>separation between the CWG and CCWG precisely because the problems 
>of IANA accountability and ICANN's "other stuff" - which is 99.9% 
>policy making - are so different. Why would we have created two 
>distinct working groups and given the CWG an explicit mandate to pay 
>attention to the accountability of the IANA functions if the CCWG 
>was intended to cover it all?
>
>--MM
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 7:47 PM
> > To: Milton L Mueller; Andrew Sullivan; cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] ICANN Board as "regulator" (was: A liaison
> > from the Board to CWG)
> >
> > NO! The CCWG is working on internal ICANN accountability reforms with
> > regard to whatever ICANN is doing, which may include the IANA function if
> > that continues, through whatever means, to be in its purview.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 21/02/2015 07:00 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >
> > >CCWG is working on internal ICANN accountability reforms that relate to
> > >the policy making function.