[Accountability-dt] Updated version for review & outstanding action items

Fri Oct 31 01:11:40 UTC 2014

Hi Keith, 
Do you want to add those 2 questions to the draft?

From:  <Drazek>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Date:  Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:35 AM
To:  "accountability-dt at icann.org" <accountability-dt at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Accountability-dt] Updated version for review & outstanding
action items

Thanks very much, Grace.

I think these most recent quotes from both Larry Strickling and Fadi Chehadé
are very instructive.

The scope of the ICANN Accountability CCWG must be necessarily broad and
all-encompassing, while the scope of Work Stream #1 will address the
³mechanisms that need to be put in place to prevent bad things from
happening² once NTIA disengages from its legacy role as counter-party to the
IANA functions contract. This is in no way limited to the IANA functions
themselves  that¹s for the CWG on IANA Transition to address  but about
the implications for the entire community when NTIA sets ICANN free.

The key questions for Workstream # are:

·        How do we as a community ensure ICANN is accountable to us once the
threat of a IANA functions contract rebid is gone?
·        What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN¹s accountability to the
private-sector-led multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from
its stewardship role?

Looking forward to today¹s call.

Regards, 
Keith 

From: accountability-dt-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-dt-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Grace Abuhamad
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:00 AM
To: Matthew Shears; Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr; Fares, David; Marika Konings;
accountability-dt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Accountability-dt] Updated version for review & outstanding
action items

Hi all, 

It's been brought to my attention that I missed a comment by Larry
Strickling in the Q/A part of the session at ICANN51 (13 October). Larry was
responding to a question by Steve Del Bianco. The text is as follows:

>>Larry Strickling: so I -- so for example, I have noted in prior public
statements that the absence of a board recall mechanism for the community, that
would seem to me to be the kind of question that would definitely be within the
more limited initial scope of the accountability --

Now, that's a big issue. It's not a tiny issue whatsoever. But it does seem
to me those are the kinds of issues people will have concern about when
they're thinking about what would happen if -- what prevents this
organization from spinning out of control when the US contract isn't there
any longer. 

Nobody expects it to happen, but I think all of us, to be responsible to
this transition, need to think through those possibilities and understand
what mechanisms exist today or need to be put into place to prevent bad
things like that from happening.

Talk to you soon, 
Grace

From: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:32 AM
To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>, "Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr"
<Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>, "Fares, David" <DFares at 21cf.com>, Marika Konings
<marika.konings at icann.org>, "accountability-dt at icann.org"
<accountability-dt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Accountability-dt] Updated version for review & outstanding
action items

Thanks Grace - very helpful.

For our purposes I think Chehade's comments are most useful:

"One to deal with accountability mechanisms that must be reinforced or added
before the transition occurs or along with the transition -- and this is
something Assistant Secretary Strickling made clear in his speech in
Istanbul, that he will be looking for community consensus, community
consensus, on how we improve our accountability with regard specifically to
the transition, and then in parallel, another group - - because we are also
receiving these requests -- needs to look at the broader ICANN
accountability and governance improvements that we need to do that may not
need to be necessarily taken care of before a transition occurs."

To paraphrase: 1) improvements (in light of the changing relationship with
the USG) to ICANN's accountability and governance that are specific to and
necessary to take place before the transition, and 2) improvements to
ICANN's accountability and governance more broadly that "may not need to be
taken care of before" the transition.

Matthew

On 10/30/2014 9:00 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:
> Hi all, 
>  
> I sent the compiled comments on Monday. Were they not received? Here attached
> again just in case.
>  
> Talk to you all soon,
> Grace
>  
> From: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:45 AM
> To: "Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr" <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>, "Fares, David"
> <DFares at 21cf.com>, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>,
> "accountability-dt at icann.org" <accountability-dt at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Accountability-dt] Updated version for review & outstanding
> action items
>  
> 
> This is a useful discussion and it would be good to see the related statements
> by Strickling and Chehade at ICANN LA meeting.
> 
> I note the following from
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en
> 
> 
> ·        Scope of the accountability process  two work streams: The topic of
> accountability is important, and in the discussions around this process, areas
> and topics have been identified that are important to enhancing ICANN's
> accountability but not directly related to accountability in the context of
> the changing historical relationship with the USG.
> o   To ensure that over time there's a mechanism to ensure coverage of all
> areas, including topics outside of the immediate scope of the process, a
> suggestion is that the CCWG establish two work streams or subgroups: one
> focused on the scope of the work on enhancing ICANN accountability in light of
> the changing relationship with the USG within the time frame of the transition
> (Work Stream 1); and a second focused on addressing topics on accountability
> outside the scope of Work Stream 1, which are longer term (and may include,
> for example, recommendations from the recent ATRT2 addressing current
> accountability mechanisms such as the Ombudsman, the Reconsideration process
> and the Independent Review process) (Work Stream 2). This could be reflected
> in the CCWG's Charter.
> 
> My bolding but I think it does point to the need to have a more open-ended
> scope in the Charter that is not parametered by a relationship to the IANA
> transition.  Otherwise we would only need one workstream.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On 10/30/2014 7:34 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
>> Dear David and Matthew,
>> 
>> Thanks to both of you for the useful edits and thoughtful comments.
>> 
>> Regarding the scope, I support David's addition to clarify that the CCWG
>> needs to take into account the effects of the transition in its broadest
>> sense :
>> 
>> 
>> The CCWG will investigate accountability mechanisms regarding all of the
>> functions provided by ICANN, as long as it finds that such accountability
>> mechanism is related to the transition of the NTIA Stewardship in its
>> broadest sense, i.e the NTIA Stewardship served as a de facto accountability
>> mechanism across the entirety of ICANN. The CCWG will be expected to identify
>> how its proposals are related to the transition, again in its broadest
>> sense.[DF1] <#_msocom_1>  [CS2] <#_msocom_2>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987

 [CS2] <#_msoanchor_2>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-dt/attachments/20141031/ed1a91a9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-dt/attachments/20141031/ed1a91a9/smime-0001.p7s>