[ianatransition] Coordination Group Charter, Public Comments
mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us
Sun Aug 17 20:23:37 UTC 2014
You make precisely the points I intended. I would not characterize two parallel but separate processes as “joined at the hip.”
There is a place for acountability discussions. It is not here.
On Aug 17, 2014, at 12:45 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> Mike Roberts wrote:
>> FWIW, I don’t believe this post belongs on this list.
>> (1) Several months of discussion have evolved to a consensus, rough type, that Internet Governance (Big I, big G) issues are not part of the IANA transition. Both have their appropriate venues. (See suggestions in Wolfgang’s post of yesterday.) There seems to be a small but continuing effort to marry the two, possibly for some sort of perceived political leverage.
>> (2) This post manages to mix up a slew of issues into an unpalatable stew. The ICG has enough on its plate without adding to the menu. IANA has been, is now, and - with the help of the technical community around it, will remain - an effective technical enterprise with important operational responsibilities involving billions of transactions per day. The last thing it needs is "global stakeholders such as international organizations and prominent NGOs,” whose absence of competence to be involved is self-evident, whstever their many other good qualities may be.
>> (3) On the 1net list and elsewhere, endless accountability discussions have evolved to nothing resembling a new, robust, legally grounded, and broadly supported oversight structure for ICANN. The rhetoric of this post hardly encourages one that such a solution is near.
>> (4) Some of us might hope that ICG would confine itself to finding that: (a) no changes in the current administrative, technical or operational aspects of IANA are needed or desirable; and (b) to the extent that revisions to the existing oversight structure for ICANN are needed to encompass the absence of the NTIA contract, they can be dealt with through the AoC activities previously commissioned by NTIA.
>> - Mike
> <snip - omitted Tamer Rizk's post re. accountability>
> I would point out that others have reached a completely different point of view.
> 1. On Friday (8/15) - This was posted to the list, as an official announcement from ICANN.
>> From:*Grace Abuhamad* grace.abuhamad at icann.org
>> Please see the original announcement at
>> ICANN today published Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance -
>> Process and Next Steps
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-08-14-en> , a
>> document that describes the process to examine how, from an organizational
>> perspective, ICANN's accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to
>> address the absence of its historical relationship with the US Government
>> including looking at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms.
>> Last spring, when the community began its initial discussions on the task of
>> transitioning NTIA's stewardship of the IANA Functions, the community raised
>> the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability.
>> What emerged was a commitment to launch a second process parallel but
>> interrelated with the IANA stewardship transition process to do this work.
>> During an extended public comment period from the beginning of May to the
>> end of June, we received 49 comments, with a majority discussing the more
>> substantive aspects of accountability, while some focused on the design of
>> the review process itself.
>> An important attribute of the IANA Stewardship Transition process and this
>> ICANN Accountability & Governance Review process is that the work of each
>> completes in time to meet the expectations of the IANA Functions Contract
>> ending in September 2015.
> and the summary of received comments (published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-enhancing-accountability-14aug14-en.pdf), included this:
>> Relationship to IANA Stewardship Transition Process
>> The MPAA, USCIB, SIIA, Robin Gross, Verizon, ccNSO, CNNIC, Donuts, Google, Heritage Foundation,the Government of Brazil, Edward Morris and NCSG each commented on the linkage between the IANA Stewardship Transition Process and the accountability work, with multiple commenters stating a preference for varying levels of completion of the accountability track work and the timing of the completion of the transition of stewardship. For example, Verizon called for a “concrete plan [onaccountability] vetted and approved” through the multi-stakeholder process prior to the transition taking place, SIIA called for agreement on new consensus ICANN accountability mechanisms being reached prior to a decision on the transition, Robin Gross calls for the resolution of ICANN’s accountability issues as a necessary prerequisite to the transition, USCIB called for new mechanisms to be incorporated into the Bylaws and procedures of ICANN prior to the transition, and MPAA sought a “firm commitment” from ICANN to complete and codify the improvements of the accountability process prior to finalizing a transition recommendation.
> So.... given that many significant others, including apparently ICANN, have concluded that the two processes (transition and accountability) are married at the hip, and "that the work of each completes in time to meet the expectations of the IANA Functions Contract ending in September 2015" - I would say that your definitive statements that "Internet Governance (Big I, big G) issues are not part of the IANA transition" and that posts related to accountability don't belong on this list seem to be a tad off base. Particularly in that there does not seem to be a parallel email list or discussion forum focused just on accountability issues.
> Miles Fidelman
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
> ianatransition mailing list
> ianatransition at icann.org
More information about the ianatransition