[CCWG-ACCT] ISTACC call 2015-04-15

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Co-Chairs,

we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two
issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager
accountability.

For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others
provided for context):

	This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking
	place alongside a parallel and related process on the
	transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through
	the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
	on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship).

	The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements
	required for the continuance of IANA functions in an
	accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of
	the IANA Functions Contract.

	Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions
	(i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not
	within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being
	dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship.

	Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and
	interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their
	work.

Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or
should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that
effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I
believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the
functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the
decision making process of the Board.  Never mind that I can not
recall any debate on this issue in the plenum.

I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie
how they do things.  For example, one major issue of contention is
or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue
should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff
leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts.
That would also be operational.

But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the
actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to
address this.

And I find that starting at the beginning helps.

Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to
how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to
make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but
not necessarily only them.

The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond,
borders on the deliberate.

It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair",
by the way :-)-O


And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really
would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he
referred to so eloquently.

I will liaise with CWG staff to find it.

greetings, el
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=hGTx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----