[Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability

Wed Oct 15 20:59:53 UTC 2014

@Milton +1.

In the At-Large community, it is widely felt that ignoring the link (mentioned by Milton) would cast doubt on the transition itself. As others on this thread have already said, there is a necessary separation, but that does not mean mutual exclusion.

Jean-Jacques.

----- Mail original -----
De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net>, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa at cooperw.in>
Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg at icann.org>
Envoyé: Mercredi 15 Octobre 2014 12:17:40
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability

Daniel, 

What you say is reasonable enough for someone not familiar with the political dynamics of the situation we are actually in. But we cannot ignore those other processes. We can produce a quality final proposal but it still has to be coordinated with the ICANN accountability process. Not only is that required by our charter, but concerns that ICANN is not accountable enough could prevent the transition from being completed regardless of the quality of our proposal. So as a matter of fact, we cannot be solely concerned with the quality of our one document, we have to understand what track 1 of the ICANN accountability CWG is proposing and how it meshes with our proposal. 

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg 

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 > 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 > 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 > 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 
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