<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the
Accountabilty category<br>
<br>
<br>
the new Category is Separability.<br>
<br>
In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for
the Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move
the contract for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of
the IETF capability. Other principles such as stabilty mean this
can't just happen willy nilly, but there must be some sort of
periodic opportunity this to happen. Or perhaps a 6 month clause
like the IETF has. while there are several ways to do this, I think
it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the means.<br>
<br>
And the new bullets in accountability<br>
<br>
- There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of
redress. Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort
of juridical system or a yet to be named capability, it has to be
possible for there to be an accessible and relaible mean of redress.<br>
<br>
- We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders?
The policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users?
Accountabilty must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the
stakeholders, but that probably needs to be further defined. Do we
mean the multiplicity of stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we
mean to a Tunis Agenda model of stakeholders? Some other model?<br>
<br>
<br>
The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind
of solution we might come up with.<br>
<br>
thanks<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>