[CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition

Thu Jan 15 16:19:26 UTC 2015

Dear Paul, Kavouss, Tijani, Mathieu, all,

I think Paul’s „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.” clearly shows the difference between te charter’s version and the „elaborated” one: the latter narrows down on a specific group of mechanisms (that when in place or committed to would etc..). That can be good, if we agree. On the other side, it might exclude mechanisms that the charter version includes (mechanisms other than that when in place or committed to would etc..).
To illustrate my point: a review mechanism that has to be in place before IANA stewardship transition is in scope with the charter phrasing, but does not "provide the community with assurance that any accountability  mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community.”

It might look like a compromise, but it is not intended to be, how about:

  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, including mechanisms that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with assurance 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)

I agree, it’s one terribly long sentence. I submit that we can leave out the bit I put in brackets, because the phrasing already correctly covers the „even if” situations implicitly.

Cheers,

Roelof

From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
Date: donderdag 15 januari 2015 15:22
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>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
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<mailto: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<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 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________
[http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<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/20150115/1cce8b5f/attachment.html>