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

Fri Oct 31 15:24:02 UTC 2014

Multi-stakeholder : yes, absolutely

To preserve the public interest, the leadership should also be
multi-stakeholder.

I know, we are diverting from our mission, and that’s why I’m saying this is
not our job.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

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 Avri Doria
Envoyé : vendredi 31 octobre 2014 12:10
À : accountability-dt at icann.org
Objet : Re: [Accountability-dt] Updated version for review & outstanding
action items

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  <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mshears at cdt.org>
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:32 AM
To: Grace Abuhamad  <mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
<grace.abuhamad at icann.org>,  <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>
"Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr"
 <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>, "Fares, David"
<mailto:DFares at 21cf.com> <DFares at 21cf.com>, Marika Konings
 <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>,
<mailto:accountability-dt at icann.org> "accountability-dt at icann.org"
 <mailto: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  <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mshears at cdt.org>
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:45 AM
To:  <mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr> "Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr"
<mailto:Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr> <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr>, "Fares, David"
 <mailto:DFares at 21cf.com> <DFares at 21cf.com>, Marika Konings
<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> <marika.konings at icann.org>,
 <mailto:accountability-dt at icann.org> "accountability-dt at icann.org"
<mailto: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

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-dt/attachments/20141031/e4d6f08c/attachment-0001.html>