[CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Respetful disagreement.  I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place.  Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur.  More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so.  To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability  mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur.

 

Paul

 

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***

509 C St. NE

Washington, DC 20002

 

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

 

From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition

 

Dear all,

 

I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:

 

In the charter:

*        Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition;

*        Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition 

 

The new proposal:

*        Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability  mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. 

*        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.

 

I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.

 

On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirement 

 

I would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone:  + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax:       + 216 70 853 376

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  


 <http://www.avast.com/> 

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! <http://www.avast.com/>  est active. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150115/18358b47/attachment.html>