[CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition

[Edward Morris]

+1

Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything 
I could write. Thanks. 

One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency  
(reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks,  should actually 
be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a 
system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of 
review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply 
must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of 
accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and 
open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place 
before the transition can be allowed to occur.  
-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>, 
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition

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

paul.rosenzweig 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

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 



Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant 
parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150115/4082e751/attachment.html>