[Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 17:53:19 UTC 2014


Alissa
There is a little bit of confusion relating to two different entities both
called " Cross Community Working Group"
1. One CCWG dealing with IANA  stewardship transition under Names which
ccNSO and GNSO are responsible
2 .Another CCWG dealing with accountability with two tracks
2.1 ICANN Accountability relating to IANA Transition
2.2. ICANN Accountability in general sense
Moreover there would a need between Group 1 and Group referred to in 2.1
Please make it quite clear when tyou take the floor
Regards
Kavouss

2014-10-14 19:41 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

>  Alissa:
>
> I presume you will be drawing on the FAQ bit about the coordination with
> the ICANN accountability process
>
>
>
> That has just gotten a bit more complicated. There are now 3 distinct
> processes: 1) The names Cross community working group (CWG) on IANA, 2) the
> ICANN CWG on accountability track 1, and 3) the ICANN CWG on accountability
> track 2. If you need help understanding what any of those are and how the
> overlap from someone familiar with the names politics, just ask.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
>
>  I have been invited to participate in the Thursday community session
> about enhancing ICANN accountability <
> http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-enhancing-accountability>. There is
> a large panel of speakers and I will have a 5-minute slot. I have been
> asked to talk about how the ICG plans to link to the parallel
> accountability process and what discussions have taken place about this so
> far.
>
>
>
> Obviously we have been discussing this a bit amongst ourselves in the
> context of the proposal finalization process and the FAQ, both of which are
> on our agenda for further discussion on Friday. We also have a slot on
> Friday to discuss how we will liaise with the accountability CCWG. While
> the results of these discussions are TBD, I think there are a few points I
> can make, slightly expanding on what is in the FAQ:
>
>
>
> 1. Our charter recognizes that maintaining the accountability of Internet
> identifier governance is central to the transition process.
>
>
>
> 2. The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and
> accountability — writ large, i.e., "all the ways in which oversight is
> conducted over the IANA functions operator’s provision of the services and
> activities” — in their proposals.
>
>
>
> 3. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities
> regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an analysis and assessment of their
> implications for ICANN accountability. We are still discussing what this
> analysis and assessment will entail, and this will depend somewhat on the
> extent to which ICANN accountability is the focus of one or more community
> proposals.
>
>
>
> 4. We will be having further discussion on Friday to determine how we will
> procedurally liaise with the accountability CCWG, including how and when we
> might communicate the analysis/assessment described in (3).
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> Alissa
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141014/653a4efa/attachment.html>


More information about the Internal-cg mailing list