<p dir="ltr">I think those are defined in the NTIA requirement with perhaps the biggest one being the no governmental/intergovernmental replacement.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cheers!</p>
<p dir="ltr">sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 23 Oct 2014 01:55, "Fouad Bajwa" <<a href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Is it possible to understand what are the boundaries or limits of the<br>
IANA contract that should not be crossed at all in the transition<br>
design? I am thinking from outward to inwards...<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Avri Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty<br>
> 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<br>
> Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the contract<br>
> for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of the IETF capability.<br>
> Other principles such as stabilty mean this can't just happen willy nilly,<br>
> but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen. Or<br>
> perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has. while there are several ways to<br>
> do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the<br>
> means.<br>
><br>
> And the new bullets in accountability<br>
><br>
> - There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress.<br>
> Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical system<br>
> or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be an<br>
> accessible and relaible mean of redress.<br>
><br>
> - We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders? The<br>
> policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users? Accountabilty<br>
> must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the stakeholders, but<br>
> that probably needs to be further defined. Do we mean the multiplicity of<br>
> stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of<br>
> stakeholders? Some other model?<br>
><br>
><br>
> The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of<br>
> solution we might come up with.<br>
><br>
> thanks<br>
><br>
> avri<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Regards.<br>
--------------------------<br>
Fouad Bajwa<br>
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor<br>
My Blog: Internet's Governance: <a href="http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/</a><br>
Follow my Tweets: <a href="http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CWG-Stewardship mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org">CWG-Stewardship@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship</a><br>
</blockquote></div>