[Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..

[Joe Alhadeff]

There are two questions related to accountability.  One is within the processes of IANA and then the overall ICANN accountability.  We certainly need to have an opinion on the former, and to the extent that the the NTIA transition is replaced by some the ICANN accountability mechanism, then it should not be out of bounds for us to have an opinion as it may impact the overall oversight/accountability of the IANA accountability functions.  
----- Original Message -----
From: housley at vigilsec.com
To: internal-cg at icann.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:06:34 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..

I have two concerns.

Q4:  I do not like defining IANA is this way.  It makes it seem that IANA would not exist if not for the contract.  Clearly, we want it to continue when the contract goes away, and some IANA functions are completely outside the contract.  For example, the IANA role in the Timezone Database is completely outside the contract.  I realize the definition includes "other" functions, but think we want to avoid using the contract as a means of defining IANA.

Q14: If the ICANN community comes to consensus on a plan that includes accountability mechanisms, who is the ICG to "conduct an analysis of their overall implications for ICANN accountability?"  I have a real problem saying that ICG will do this.  The ICANN community needs to say whether the accountability mechanisms are sufficient, not the ICG.  Making sure there are not gaps between the proposals is a different matter, but that is not what the current text says.

Russ


_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg