[CCWG-ACCT] Larry's questions (was: A blog from NTIA)

[Jordan Carter]

Hi all, I know it's poor form to reply to emails you sent, but I thought
I'd try answering some of Larry's questions, to start some conversation on
list about them... answering is actually more like offering comments for
conversation...

Also just a view that while it would have been helpful for NTIA to offer
these as part of a public comment in time, I am sure that the U.S. congress
and other public and political debates in the USA will need solid answers
to all of these questions.

On 17 June 2015 at 01:22, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the
> very interesting questions Larry poses us:
>
> In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA
> must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft
> proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN
> Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in
> Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders
> to consider:
>
>    - The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How
>    can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new
>    organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability
>    of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and
>    structures create a different set of accountability questions?
>
>
* would we look to SSAC to comment on the proposals?
* I have asked about the notion of stress-testing our proposed
accountability changes (so far, the stress-testing has been focused on
making sure the accountability solution can deal with ICANN's
accountability to the community, and I do think we need to discuss how to
apply the same methodology to our own proposed solutions.)
* new tools do raise new questions but that is necessary as part of the
process of ending the NTIA contract.
* our proposal has to answer and resolve concerns of this sort and that's a
high bar for v2 to meet



>    - The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community
>    empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed,
>    and documented?  Has the working group designed stress tests of the various
>    models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual
>    ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out?  Similarly,
>    has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk
>    of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various
>    models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential
>    unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been
>    advisory in nature?
>
>
* lots of questions for the ST-WP to comment more on
* I feel like we've looked quite carefully and are continuing to look at
membership, designator and "whatever it's now called" ("trust"?
"Voluntary"? "bylaws"?) models, including with legal advice.


>    - The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent
>    Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of
>    accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns
>    with the IRP?
>
>
* Becky?


>
>    - In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working
>    group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the
>    multistakeholder model?  Should the standard for Board action be to confirm
>    that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability
>    mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that
>    standard?
>
>
* this is a sort of bigger picture issue which feels almost like part of
CWG-Stewardship's responsibility?


>
>    - The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN
>    Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be
>    accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff
>    or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees?
>
>
* personal view is that board is responsible for holding ICANN mgmt and
staff to account
* we could consider cascading accountability obligations down to SOs and
ACs...


Lots of food for thought here.


best
Jordan


> All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the
> community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the
> Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and
> thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be
> maintained in the future.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Avri Doria* <avri at acm.org>
> Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015
> Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA
> To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>
>
>
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-meeting-argentina
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150618/da046fd4/attachment.html>