[CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition

Thu Jan 15 15:17:21 UTC 2015

 Dear All,
I do not understand who agreed with whom
What has been changed from the Charter.
I personally fully agree with the following
Quote
"* in the absence “**mechanisms [that] would provide the community with
confidence that any accountability  mechanism that would further enhance
ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three
distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could
be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA
Functions transition should not occur." *
*Unquote*

*Kavouss *

2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris at milk.toast.net>:

> +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
> <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:* 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150115/e63f6b16/attachment.html>