[CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure

[Drazek, Keith]

That’s why the two parallel processes, CWG and CCWG, are interrelated, interdependent, inextricably intertwined and, before too long, must sync up. ;-)

Keith

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr Eberhard W Lisse
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:35 PM
To: CCWG Accountability
Cc: directors at omadhina.net
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure

I beg to differ.

It is not as if the Root Zone Management has been done very well, as I have elaborated in my previous post.

We need to hold the IANA Function Manager accountable, whoever it is, whether it changes, or whatever :-)-O

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jan 29, 2015, at 19:24, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:
Eric,

Your continued focus on the Root Zone Management and associated interests in a secure and stable root is but a small subset of the community’s overall work.

Registries, contractees and delegees (and the rest of the community) have far broader accountability needs than simply ensuring the root is operated in an acceptable manner. That broader reform is the work of the Accountability CCWG.

The “continued function of the Root Management Zone” is really the focus of the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG and I believe our charter is explicit that the CCWG Accountability defers to the CWG Transition in that area.

Regards,
Keith

[...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150129/ab223884/attachment.html>