[CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2: Comments based on impressions from Meeting Notes.

[Sivasubramanian M]

Dear Steve, Jordan and Mathew


We did discuss how Work Steam 1 and 2 would look at areas of Accountability
improvements before and after transition but not how the exact items of
improvements would be split between pre and post-transition. Also, though
the following items were discussed, it is only in this message that the
following items appear conclusively as items to be implemented before
transition:


>    - Recalling members of the ICANN board of directors.
>
>
>    - Community empowerment over ICANN’s management.
>
>
>    - Limiting the scope of ICANN’s activity.
>
>
Even if late, there may not be any harm in being thorough on the positive
consequences of these sweeping changes, as also in thinking thorough
probable unintended consequences.

Thank you.


   -


Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
wrote:

>  Siva — Back in December, we gathered consensus around this rationale
> between WS1 and WS2:
>
>
>  Proposed rationale for designating Work Streams: (updated to reflect
> discussion thru 12-Jan)
>
> Work Stream 1 is designated for accountability enhancement mechanisms that
> must be in place or committed to, before IANA transition occurs.
>
>  WS1 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 the
> mechanisms in WS1 are adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite
> resistance from ICANN management and board.
>
>    The legal team’s formulation between WS1 and WS2 legal questions fits
> with that proposal.
>
>  —
>  Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org <http://www.netchoice.org/> and
> http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.703.615.6206
>
>
>
>   From: Sivasubramanian M
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 7:54 PM
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Work Stream 1 and Work Stream 2: Comments based on
> impressions from Meeting Notes.
>
>   Hello
>
>
>  I was not present for the Legal Sub Team call
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891852 on 10th
> March and have not listened to the recording either. This comment is based
> on the Introductory section of the Meeting Notes, which might not be points
> discussed at length during the Sub Team meeting, quoted below, and raised
> here as a point to consider by the whole group:
>
>  Notes:  2. Brief Discussion:
>>
>>    - WS2 - no need to be in place before transition takes place but
>>    needs to take place post transition.
>>
>>
>> Three items need to be put in place as part of WS1.
>>
>>    - Recalling members of the ICANN board of directors.
>>
>>
>>    - Community empowerment over ICANN’s management.
>>
>>
>>    - Limiting the scope of ICANN’s activity.
>>
>>
>    -
>
>
>  One of the several proposals for Work Stream 2 was based on the
> rationale that pre-transition changes to the Accountability framework is
> minimal with major improvements to discussed and carried out on an ongoing
> basis post transition.
>
>  With almost zero discussion on Work Stream 2, without even the formation
> of work stream 2, it is highly undesirable to think of such changes to the
> Accountability framework as the inclusion of provisions to recall members
> of the Board, limiting the scope of ICANN's activity or even Community
> empowerment over ICANN management.
>
>  Within a well-considered and larger Accountability environment such
> changes could be effected in phases, in tune with a larger and clearer blue
> print, but without even a beginning on such a blue print, it is unwise to
> think of the changes as proposed for WS1. These provisions, if included
> pre-transition and in a rush, could prove counter productive.
>
>  I would propose the bare minimal improvements to the Accountability
> framework, if such improvements are to be made in a rush. At best, WS 1
> could discuss such changes but leave it for implementation post transition,
> after more elaborate thinking.
>
>  Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>   Sivasubramanian M <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150312/9009df3f/attachment.html>