[IANAtransition] Separation of Responsibilities from current SoW
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Apr 12 15:39:22 UTC 2014
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 12 Apr 2014 08:09, "Richard Hill" <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:
> I thank Chip for bringing a relevant fact to our attention. Facts are
considered the basis from which to conduct logical reasoning in many
fields, including engineering, law, and science.
> In turn I offer another fact which appears to me to be relevant. Article
XIX of the ICANN Bylaws states:
> "Except as otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation or these
Bylaws, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of ICANN may be altered,
amended, or repealed and new Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws adopted
only upon action by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Board."
> That is, the ICANN Board can change its bylaws.
> Brian suggests that functional separation would be ensured if the current
functional separation provision of the IANA contract is added to the ICANN
> I disagree, because the ICANN Board could at any time repeal or change
such a provision in the ICANN Bylaws.
Then the new SOW for the new oversight should ensure that such should not
happen. It should instead turn the responsibility of making such change to
the multi stakeholder community.
> That's why I keep saying that either the ICANN Bylaws have to be
drastically revised (including so that they cannot be changed by the Board)
or we should envisage structural separation.
There is already structural separation existing. The maintenance of the
current status-quo (and improving on it by making the oversight community
driven) is the task at hand. The new oversight should ensure that
accountability is driven by the community and not the board.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ianatransition-bounces at icann.org
> > [mailto:ianatransition-bounces at icann.org]On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> > Sent: samedi, 12. avril 2014 07:17
> > To: Chip Sharp (chsharp)
> > Cc: ianatransition at icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [IANAtransition] Separation of Responsibilities from
> > current SoW
> > On 12/04/2014 15:39, Chip Sharp (chsharp) wrote:
> > > Since there seems to be a lot of discussion on the list about
> > what is or is not in the current contract about separation of
> > policy development and operational roles of the IANA function, I
> > thought it might be useful to pull the text from the Statement of Work.
> > >
> > >>From SA1301-12-CN-0035 and SA1301-12-RP-0043:
> > >
> > > "C.2.5 Separation of Policy Development and Operational Roles
> > -- The Contractor shall ensure that designated IANA functions
> > staff members will not initiate, advance, or advocate any policy
> > development related to the IANA functions. The Contractor's staff
> > may respond to requests for information requested by interested
> > and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3 to inform
> > ongoing policy discussions and may request guidance or
> > clarification as necessary for the performance of the IANA functions."
> > And those requirements should be added to ICANN's By Laws. I
> > can't disagree.
> > If that's all we're arguing about, the argument's over.
> > Brian
> > _______________________________________________
> > ianatransition mailing list
> > ianatransition at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ianatransition
> ianatransition mailing list
> ianatransition at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ianatransition