[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Milton L Mueller]

On the dividing line point -- are we as a group going to deal with "ICANN problem" accountability, or only with "IANA problem" accountability?  I think we've strayed into the former and should pull back, but we can't pull back so far that we fail to deal with the latter.

Finally, I think this also impacts the scope of the IAP (at least as a CWG program): should we be creating an appeals forum for an "ICANN problem" (e.g., a controversial delegation/redelegation decision) or should we limit ourselves to creating an appeals forum for "IANA problems" (e.g., action or inaction by the IANA team that results in a failure to carry out the task it was instructed to do).  Here again, I think we should limit ourselves to the latter, more limited course of action.


I am somewhat surprised at these questions. Of course this CWG deals only with IANA problem accountability, not with general “ICANN [policy process] accountability problems”. People advocating an external solution or structural separation have always understood that these two things cannot be mixed up. The confusion between the two is one of the artifacts of keeping everything inside ICANN.

Absolutely the IAP associated with this CWG should only be fielding appeals related to IANA-related processes and decisions. So we are in agreement, and not only that, I was unaware of anyone who thinks otherwise. Yes, internalists have been arguing that improving general ICANN accountability will completely solve the IANA accountability problem, but I was unaware of anyone who thinks that IANA accountability can be used to fix ICANN’s policy process issues.

Milton L. Mueller
Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150223/f59bd93c/attachment.html>