[Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability

joseph alhadeff joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Wed Oct 15 13:01:18 UTC 2014


I would take a slightly softer tone than yours, as we do not wish to 
suggest that the ICANN accountability work has no relevance to ours.  We 
will need to coordinate with that group as part of our work.  We need to 
be very clear, however, that we are not driving that work and do not 
control its agendas or timelines and therefore are not in position to 
address it in any substantive way.


On 10/15/2014 1:10 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> i understand the dynamics of 'icann week'. i also sense the desire of 
> the crowd to link everything and anything as well as a good number of 
> competing "complications departments" at work. my advice  is to resist 
> that very pressure and to project that icg is very focused on our 
> deliverable and its particular content related to accountability. we 
> are not here to discuss icann accountability or to create a web of 
> additional linkages that complicate our specific work. if ntia wants 
> to base their decision to withdraw on other input besides our 
> deliverable, that should not be our concern. we should be focused on 
> our specific work. ultimately we will be judged by the quality of that 
> one document and we should put our energy into working with the 
> operational communities to produce that one document and with everyone 
> else to explain that one document and to make sure there are no 
> show-stopping concerns about that one document. this is the approach i 
> advise and the one i advise to project.
> again,  EUR 0.02
> Daniel
> ----------
> Sent from a hand held device.
> On 14.10.2014, at 20:56, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in 
> <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>> Agreed. The only thing I would say is that people are very interested 
>> in #3 and #4. I got questions about them both in meetings and in the 
>> hallway yesterday. So I don't think we can avoid talking about them 
>> altogether, even if we haven't fully sorted out how we will handle them.
>> Alissa
>> On Oct 14, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Daniel Karrenberg 
>> <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net <mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>> wrote:
>>> alissa,
>>> please stress point 2 above all else and add a good dose of lynn's 
>>> first para about focus. we should project that we are focussed on 
>>> our specific deliverable above anything else. in a "one of a dozen 
>>> statements" situation it pays to leave all non-essentials off. if 
>>> people ask about them, you get more airtime to answer those in a 
>>> susequent round. it is most important to get a clear message out and 
>>> not obscure it in any way. to my ears your points after 2 have a 
>>> strong subtext suggesting that we might become creative. something 
>>> we have agreed to avoid.
>>> so far my EUR0.02
>>> daniel
>>> ----------
>>> Sent from a hand held device.
>>> On 14.10.2014, at 16:50, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in 
>>> <mailto:alissa at cooperw.in>> wrote:
>>>> 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 <mailto:Internal-cg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141015/1ccd6966/attachment.html>

More information about the Internal-cg mailing list