[CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting

Fri Jan 2 14:49:24 UTC 2015

Dear Phil and Paul
We are in principle in agreement on the substance but having different
approaches to achive the objectives .
Pls read my last message to Paul some 15 mints ago
Kavouss

2015-01-02 1:57 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>:

>  Adding to Paul’s thoughts –
>
>
>
> The US government funding bill for FY 2015 enacted and signed by the
> President at the end of the last Congress a few weeks ago prohibits NTIA
> from spending any funds on the IANA transition through September 30, 2014
> and also requires NTIA to provide Congress with 45 days’ notice of any
> intent to transition the functions – that latter provision has no
> expiration date. These provisions were a compromise between a Republican
> House and Democratic Senate; both chambers will be under Republican control
> for the next two years so any future legislative language on this, should
> there be any, could be different.
>
>
>
> Some have opined (and I believe Paul is in this camp, but I will let him
> speak for himself) believe that the just enacted language has a loophole
> that would not prevent the NTIA from simply letting the IANA contract
> expire. But that raises the question of what happens to control of the IANA
> functions if the current contract is not extended or transferred? Some
> think they could permanently fall into ICANN’s control if that were to
> happen. I disagree, believing that as the contracting party they revert to
> US control in the absence of a contract. But as a practical matter I do not
> expect NTIA to take such a route – not only would it be a very
> confrontational move that could have very adverse effects for the funding
> of other Department of Commerce operations, but it would be contrary to the
> stated intent of NTIA to only make the transfer under a transition plan
> developed by the multistakeholder community and accompanied by
> accountability enhancements.
>
>
>
> As to Congressional oversight, my best guesstimate based on current
> information is that the Commerce and Judiciary Committees of both the House
> and Senate will all hold one or more oversight hearings on the progress of
> and outlook for the transition plan, that the work of this CWG and the
> Accountability CCWG will be reviewed, and that the first of those hearings
> could occur as early as January.
>
>
>
> Best to all,
>
> Philip
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul
> Rosenzweig
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 01, 2015 6:24 PM
> *To:* 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse'
> *Cc:* 'Lisse Eberhard'; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F
> meeting
>
>
>
> Dear Kavouss
>
>
>
> I am not necessarily the best or only observer of US policy regarding
> ICANN.  And as you know, our Congress has been in recess for the last
> several weeks for the holiday so right now very little is happening.
>
>
>
> What I can advise is that, as has already been reported, the Congress
> passed a law late last year (which the President agreed to) that prohibited
> the NTIA from spending any money to make the ICANN transition happen.  The
> text of the said that the funds approved by Conggress cannot be used by the
> NTIA to "relinquish [its] responsibility… with respect to Internet domain
> name system functions… and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA]
> functions."   I take that, at a minimum, as a statement of caution from
> Congress.
>
>
>
> The House of Representatives (our lower house) held two hearings regarding
> the transition early last year (links
> http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/4/hearing-should-the-dept-of-commerce-relinquish-direct-oversight-over-icann
> and
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/ensuring-security-stability-resilience-and-freedom-global-internet)
> when the announcement was first made.  And this editorial from the
> Washington Post (
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-must-ensure-the-internet-has-good-stewards/2014/03/21/615bac3a-b07b-11e3-95e8-39bef8e9a48b_story.html)
> reflects, I think the “general consensus” view in Washington (if there is
> such a thing).
>
>
>
> Of course things change.  Opinion will very much depend on what this group
> and ICANN wind up proposing.  My best guess is that there will be further
> hearings on the matter this Spring in both the House of Representatives and
> in our upper chamber, the Senate and that, in those forums, the work of
> this group will be examined.
>
>
>
> I hope that helps as well
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ***NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
>
> 509 C St. NE
>
> Washington, DC 20002
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
>
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
> <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:37 PM
> *To:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse
> *Cc:* <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F
> meeting
>
>
>
> Dear Paul
>
> What do you see in US NOW
>
> May you please forward that to us .At least I do not have access to that
> information.
>
> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2015-01-01 23:19 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el at lisse.na>:
>
>  Dear co-chairs,
>
>
>
> (through the co-chairs)
>
>
>
> English is only my third language and I am not that familiar with reading
> between the lines of US new-speak, and hence need your assistance in
> determining wether my understanding of this being a threat if doesn't get
> his way is correct, and if so whether it is acceptable under the charter?
>
> greetings, el
>
>
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
>
>
> On Jan 1, 2015, at 22:38, Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>  Mathieu
>
>
>
> You are, of course, the Co-Chair and you will have to figure out how to
> interact with the Board.  I hope, however, that you will not be reluctant
> to make the Board accountable.  I can see the headline here in the US now
> “ICANN Accountability Board Not Even Willing To Ask Questions.”
>   Frankly, I would write it myself …..
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> ***NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
>
> 509 C St. NE
>
> Washington, DC 20002
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
>
> Link to my PGP Key
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
>
> *From:* Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:33 AM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected
> outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would
> initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before
> finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is
> necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step
> in our work.
>
> The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are
> the following :
>
> a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the
> purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being
> drafted and will be circulated shortly)
> b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should
> enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1.
>
> c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of
> Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this
> should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our
> proposals against).
>
>
> We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved
> thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good
> preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt.
>
> Your comments and feedbacks are welcome.
>
> Best regards, and happy new year to all of you !
>
> --
>
> *****************************
>
> Mathieu WEILL
>
> For the Co-chairs
>
> mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>
> Twitter : @mathieuweill
>
> *****************************
>
>     _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8838 - Release Date: 12/30/14
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150102/fea3f7ab/attachment.html>