[Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability

WUKnoben wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Tue Oct 14 20:52:34 UTC 2014


whilst I’m in agreement with your points to be made at the panel I strongly suggest not to impose new acronyms for use within the ICG rather than to rely on the existing ones which are used in the ICANN community. More confusion shall be programmed by doing this.
For the accountability part there is still on single ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Community Working Group with 2 workstreams. It may turn out in the near future that it shall be split into 2 groups.

Best regards


From: Alissa Cooper 
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:53 AM
To: Kavouss Arasteh 
Cc: ICG 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability

Hi Kavouss,

On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

  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

Yes, good point. I wonder if we all started using a simpler nomenclature if it would catch on? :-) E.g.,

NCWG (pronounced "en-swig") = #1 above
ACWG-1 (pronounced "ay-swig-one") = #2.1 above
ACWG-2 (pronounced "ay-swig-two") = #2.2 above

In any event, this is what I think the current status of the ICG's collective understanding of our relationship to these other groups/tracks is:

NCWG: NCWG is one of the operational communities from which we are expecting a transition proposal. There are a bunch of ICG members participating as participants or members in the NCWG and they are already keeping the ICG informed about what's going on in the NCWG.

ACWG-1: The work of ACWG-1 will relate to the overall transition plan. In the ICG we are still discussing both the mechanism we will use to liaise with ACWG-1 and how we will analyze and assess the output of ACWG-1 vis a vis the output of NCWG and the other transition proposal components.

ACWG-2: The work in ACWG-2 is outside of the ICG's scope.



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


    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. 


    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).



    Internal-cg mailing list
    Internal-cg at icann.org

Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20141014/d5f855f0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list