[Internal-cg] FAQ - Question 18, accountability

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Tue Oct 7 19:19:52 UTC 2014


Does the implications for ICANN accountability run both ways: how our 
finding impact their requirements as well as how nay possible changes 
they propose might impact operational community processes?

On 10/7/2014 1:14 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Milton:
>> 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.
> This is a big improvement.  Thanks.
> I stil l worry a bit about the ICG conducting an analysis.  If the names community has achieved consensus, the only question remaining for the ICG is to determine if there are gaps.  The revised text allows the ICG to tackle this task, but it seems to allow much more as well.  It does correctly limit the ICG response to problems to coordination with the names community.
> Russ
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list