[CCWG-ACCT] Accountability in regard with IETF and RIRes Accountability

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Leon,
Thank you very much for reply .But this is inconsistent with the objectives
of work stream 1; " ACCOUNTABILITY TO BE IN PLACE OR COMMITTED BEFORE
TRANSITION RTAKES PLACE " PARAMETERS/Protocols and Numbers are integral
parts of INANA FUNCTIONS  the stewardship of which is subject to transition?
Why  the accountability of these two aspects of transition is outside the
mandate of CCWG.. If so Under whose mandate these accountabilty fall? Could
I have the views of our legal adviser pls ?
Kavouss
With my best regards

2015-06-09 2:33 GMT+02:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>:

> Dear Kavouss,
>
> Thank you for pointing this issue out. As per our Charter, IETF and CRISP
> related issues fall out of the CCWG’s scope. I quote the relevant part in
> our Charter:
>
> Other groups’ (i.e. the numbers and protocol parameters communities, as
> outlined in the ICG Request for Proposals
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rfp-iana-stewardship-08sep14-en.pdf>)
> proposals are intended to cover accountability issues related to the IANA
> Stewardship Transition, as well as issues already being considered by RIRs
> and IETF communities related in their respective areas in their engagement
> with ICANN. These issues are outside of scope of the CCWG-Accountability.
> The CCWG-Accountability will communicate with these groups to ensure that
> the CCWG-Accountability does not cover issues going beyond its scope.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
> El 08/06/2015, a las 16:04, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> Dear Co-Chairs
> Our chater relating to work Stream 1 indicates / referred to the
>  accountability  which must be in place or committed before transition
> takes place.
> In CCWG ,to gether with / inconsultation with CWG we have addressed
> accountability regarding Naming Community.
> However, regardinfg Parameters / Protocol and Numbers accountability
> nothing is mentioned.
> Accoring to IETF and CRISP they do not need any accountability ?
> WHICHIDOUBT
> I draw your attention to the PART OF THE  latest views of IETF regarding
> transition :
> Quote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *" The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has decided to use
> an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level Agreement (SLA) as the
> mechanism for this updated agreement. They have drafted the update and from
> our perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated
> agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially complete, with
> only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step*."
> Unqiote
> It seems to me neither IETF not RIREs wish to have any commuinity
> empowerment in their activities .Please look at their proposals to ICG
> dated 06 and 15 January 2015
> On the other hand   Parameters / Protocol and Numbers like Naming require
> accountability from those implementing them
> My question to Lega Adviser is ,reading the proposals from IETF and RIREs
> to ICG, do they need to be accountable to the community or nor.We need to
> have a clwear advice on this
> Regards
> KAVOUSS
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150609/c4f724b0/attachment.html>