[Internal-cg] FAQ - Question 18, accountability

Manal Ismail manal at tra.gov.eg
Mon Oct 6 23:37:31 UTC 2014

Thanks Milton ..
This is very helpful ..

Dear All ..
Since the deadline is tomorrow, allow me to attach another iteration
reflecting comments received so far, mainly by Milton (and hence the
file name) .. I have also added it to Dropbox .. Please note that by
deleting Q#7 (hope this is ok Elise) numbers of questions 8 onwards are
now changed ..

Russ and Wolf-Ulrich, please indicate whether Milton's new helpful draft
addresses your points ..

Kind regards

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 1:00 AM
To: Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper
Subject: RE: FAQ - Question 18, accountability

There are quite a few unresolved issues on question 18 regarding
Also, in her comments on Question 12 Narelle seems to imply that the FAQ
should not be saying anything at all about accountability, which I think
is wrong.

Let's go back to the relevant charter section. Here it is in full:

"The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a
parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While
maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is
central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the
arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an
accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the
NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated
and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work."

This clearly means that we must: 
a) pay attention to whether the new arrangements proposed by the OCs
provide sufficient accountability after the NTIA goes away -
accountability is "central" to the process. 
b) coordinate with the other accountability process. 
c) recognize and somehow deal with the interdependence of the two
processes. They are interdependent because _regardless of what the OC's
propose_ many constituencies don't want the US to let go of IANA until
they think ICANN as a whole has made sufficient reforms regarding

Furthermore, Wolf-Ulrich has raised an important issue, namely that the
ICANN enhanced accountability process almost certainly will take longer
than our transition process needs to take. So how do we coordinate with
a process that is probably on a more extended time frame than ours? On
the other hand, people involved in the other process will likely oppose
going forward with the transition unless they are satisfied that ICANN
has either executed or is completely committed to sufficient reforms
related to accountability. 

Worse, you all need to understand is that our final proposal will not
just go to the NTIA, it will become meat for US Congressional committees
to pick over, and that Congressional scrutiny will be more concerned
ICANN accountability than with the IANA transition per se. Or, to put it
differently, if the accountability elements of our final proposal are
not deemed strong enough to let ICANN off the hook, and if the other
ICANN accountability process is not finished yet, we can expect strong
opposition to execution of our approved transition plan. 

Because of its role, the ICG will be right in the middle of the two
processes, and this will probably prove to be one of the most difficult
aspects of our task. We will need to discuss this a lot more in LA. 

With that in mind here is a proposed redraft of Q18

18. What is the relationship between the work of the ICG and the process
concerning ICANN accountability?

The ICG charter says that accountability is "central" to our process.
The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and
accountability in their proposals.  After receiving consensus proposals
from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an
analysis and assessment of their implications for ICANN accountability.
At that point it will liaise with the ICANN accountability process and
advise it on how the results of our process affects their requirements. 

I think this modification addresses Russ's objections and Wolf-Ulrich's
warning. It does not second-guess the OC results and it does not lock
our results to the completion of the other accountability process,
though it does try to coordinate them.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICG-FAQ-v3-MM.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 82944 bytes
Desc: ICG-FAQ-v3-MM.doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141007/ec28a2df/ICG-FAQ-v3-MM.doc>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list