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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

In the framework that is being created for CWG, the work of drafting the
charter is often falling on these drafting teams.  that is why the
drafting team was created.  Until such time as there is a charter, the
ACSO have nothing to sign onto.  It is a bootstrapping technicaue that
is being used well.

As for private sector led multistakeholder, that rest on a few things.

Of course it has to be multistakeholder.  What else could it be?
Private sector means non governmental - that is what NTIA has required,
a multistakeholder process that was not led by governmentals of any sort. 

Personally I think this is gong quite well, and I think the team is
doing what the team needs to do.

Do you see problems with ALAC being able to approve this charter?  If so
that is important to know.

Thanks
avri


On 31-Oct-14 18:01, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> Keith,
>
>  
>
> You seem to be sure that the NTIA will be replaced by a "private-sector-led
> multi-stakeholder community". I think you are going too far.
>
>  
>
> In our charter, we are not supposed to give such scenario. Once again, we
> are overtaking our role. 
>
> As I said before, this is not a normal situation; The working group normally
> drafts its own charter and propose it to the chartering organizations. Now,
> we are drafting the charter of the CCWG and shouldn't do the work of the WG.
> We only should define the mission, the working method and the timeline. We
> end giving the replacement of the NTIA which is even not in the scope of the
> accountability CCWG. 
>
>  
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>
> Executive Director
>
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
>
> Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
>
> Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
>
> Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> De : accountability-dt-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-dt-bounces at icann.org] De la part de Drazek, Keith
> Envoyé : jeudi 30 octobre 2014 13:36
> À : accountability-dt at icann.org
> Objet : 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
> "mechanisms that need to be put in place to prevent bad things from
> happening" 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 -- that's 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 ICANN's accountability to the
> private-sector-led multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from
> its stewardship role?
>
>  
>
> Looking forward to today's 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] <>   [CS2] <>   
>
>  
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-dt mailing list
> Accountability-dt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-dt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-dt/attachments/20141031/3a21bd21/attachment.html>