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

Fri Jan 16 12:15:16 UTC 2015

+1 to Matthew Shears for putting the original and the new version TOGETHER

*Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez*
_________
Apartado 1571-1000
*COSTA RICA*

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>  Not to belabor this much more, and I may be being pedantic...
>
> It appears to read as if WS1 is about putting in place mechanisms that "provide
> the community with confidence" but not specifically about putting in
> place accountability mechanisms or measures.  There is a big difference
> between putting in in place process mechanisms to provide confidence (as it
> now seems to imply) and putting in place actual accountability mechanisms
> which is what the original definition suggested.  The second definition is
> fine for so long as it explicitly includes the first as well.
>
> It might be better if it read something like:
>
> *Work Stream 1*: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's
> accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame
> of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community
> with confidence that any accountability measures 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.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On 1/15/2015 10:40 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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>:
>>
>>>   +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 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
>>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
>>> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list
>> 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
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing listAccountability-Cross-Community at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150116/2a79ed56/attachment.html>