[Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability

Wed Oct 15 15:46:46 UTC 2014

Daniel:

I think we mostly agree, but let me highlight the where I think the 
intersection might be.

Today the operational communities have internal processes which include 
reviews, audits etc as part of their internal processes, but those 
operational accountability mechanisms exist within an overall ecosystem 
in which the NTIA plays an oversight role, albeit light touch.  We are 
going into a process where there will be changes proposed to operational 
community processes  which may include accountability mechanisms.  At 
the same time, the overall ecosystem will also be impacted by possibly 
expanded roles of ICANN or other multistakeholder NTIA substitute 
organization and how they deal with accountability.

I agree that we need to focus on our narrower issues, but if the changes 
in broader accountability, due to the exit of NTIA, impact how 
operational accountability processes may work within or across 
communities then we need to pay attention to those changes and 
coordinate as needed.  As we are not the creators of substantive 
positions, we would need to be in communication with the operational 
communities and other stakeholders in relation to their concerns should 
there be negative implications related to links between operational 
accountability and broader accountability processes.

This issue would hopefully be a remote possibility and will be 
determined by how the variables play out...

Joe
On 10/15/2014 10:57 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> Joe,
>
> My intention is not to be 'hard' or confrontational. Neither do i 
> suggest that we should project that attitude. I am just concerned that 
> we stay focussed on our particular deliverable and project that image.
>
> The only way i personally see a definite need for us to coordinate 
> with any icann accountability process would be if the operational 
> communities choose to reference it in their proposals while it has not 
> yet produced a final result. I literally see no other reason for 
> coordination. If that does not happen there is no way how these 
> processes would influence any language or semanics in our deliverable.
>
> That does not mean we should close our eyes. But it does mean we 
> should stay focussed on *our* work and expand our energy on working 
> proactively with the operational communities and not waste it on 
> coordination that we need much much less.
>
> I am willing to reconsider my advice/position  one the basis of 
> concrete ways any coordination would influence the content of our 
> deliverable.
>
>
> Daniel
>
> Hoping i can make at least par of Friday's meeting remotely.
> ---
> Sent from a handheld device.
>
> On 15.10.2014, at 15:01, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com 
> <mailto:joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> Daniel:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> 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,  € 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 €0.02
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org <mailto: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/20141015/59445b3c/attachment-0001.html>