[CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Streams definition

Thu Jan 15 15:53:03 UTC 2015

+1 – better said than I did!

P

**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=articl
e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key

From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz] 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:40 AM
To: Kavouss Arasteh
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org; ianatransition at icann.org;
ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org; ccwg-accountability1 at icann.org;
ccwg-accountability3
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] [Area 2] Work Streams definition

I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The
language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e.
why they have to be done before the transition.

We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what
has to be in place. This language helps do that. 

best

Jordan

On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> > wrote:

 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
<mailto: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
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> >
To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn
<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn> >,
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto: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 

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

O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>  

M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>  

Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>  or
paul.rosenzweig1066

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

From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn
<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn> ]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
<mailto: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 <tel:%2B%20216%2070%20853%C2%A0376>  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
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list
Ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org <mailto:Ccwg-accountability2 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2

-- 

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>  
Skype: jordancarter

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150115/3937acd0/attachment.html>