[CCWG-Accountability] Work Area 2: inventory of accountability mechanisms, draft 4
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Dec 22 07:55:38 UTC 2014
Dear Steve, Dear Colleagues,
Many thanks for this proposal to categorize WS1 / WS2 issues. I want to
highlight that this is one of the fundamental blocks that we need to
reach consensus on to proceed.
I have also noted Paul Rosenzweig idea of definition of a WS0 :
> As a result, I think that part of what we should be doing in the long
> run is focusing on the core/critical 3-5 items that are absolutely
> essential to ensuring accountability. In short, I think there is
> actually a sub-category of WS1 (call it *WS0* for want of a better
> term) that would be fundamental red-lines for the community.
To comply with our Charter as well as anticipate reactions from some
stakeholders, I think we would need to elaborate on how this related to
the NTIA transition. The two key questions in our Charter are :
>
> ·What would be the impact of NTIA’s transition of the IANA Functions
> Contract in ensuring ICANN’s accountability and what potential
> accountability concerns could this cause?
>
> ·What enhancements or reforms are required to be implemented or
> committed to before the NTIA Stewardship Transition?
>
I do recommend every colleague to consider this with attention.
best
Mathieu
Le 21/12/2014 22:10, Steve DelBianco a écrit :
> - Per requests from the chairs and from Alain Bidron, I expanded the
> rationale for work stream designations. These appear in the headers
> of the table and are shown below:
>
> Proposed rationale for designating Work Streams: Work Stream 1 is
> designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that must be
> in place [or firmly committed] before IANA transition occurs. All
> other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there
> are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2
> items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.
>
> 1. Mechanisms giving the ICANN community ultimate authority over
> the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as
> WS1, since community Members need the leverage of IANA transition
> to obtain these Bylaws changes.
>
> 2. Mechanisms to restrict actions of the board and management of
> the ICANN corporation. Most of these are initially designated as
> WS2, since the Members could reverse board or management decisions
> if Members are empowered in WS1 (above).
>
> 3. Mechanisms to prescribe actions of the ICANN corporation. Most
> of these are initially designated as WS2, since the Members could
> reverse board or management decisions if Members are empowered in
> WS1 (above). For example, a bottom-up consensus process to change
> ICANN bylaws might be rejected by ICANN board, but the Members
> could then reverse that decision and force the change. [I folded
> the Transparency items into this category]
>
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141222/4e2ae386/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list