[CWG-Stewardship] Relationship between CCWG-Accountability and CWG-IANA (Was: My concerns...)

[Milton L Mueller]

I am very much with Malcolm and Chuck on this issue, we all believe that the IANA transition and CCWG Accountability are "interrelated and interdependent." 

I also believe in a clear separation of policy making and implementation, so, like several others, I don't want to see PRT and the IANA contracting process be distorted into a way of making policy or a kind of coup d'etat that can veto policy. 

What is acceptable, however, is for the PRT to consider moving the IANA contract on the following grounds:
 a) a failure of IANA to implement community agreed policy
 b) for implementing IANA changes that the legitimate policy process did not agree

That is where IANA authority and the policy process intersect. 

Of course, both type a) and type b) abuses could be stopped by the proposed appeals process, but I think a PRT could and should see a pattern of such problems as grounds for moving the IANA contract. 

Do people consider this an adequate definition of how our CWG relates to the Accountability CCWG? 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 4:39 PM
> To: Malcolm Hutty; Martin Boyle; Phil Corwin; Olivier Crepin-Leblond;
> cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal
> and an alternative option
> 
> Malcolm,
> 
> I of course cannot speak for Martin nor am I trying to, but let me say
> that I think I have the same concerns as you regarding ICANN
> Accountability and I think we need to continue to ensure that the
> connection to what we are doing in the IANA CWG connects with
> overall ICANN accountability.  I think our end product must ensure that
> or we will have ignored one the most unified points that the
> community has communicated.  That said though, I don't how the PRT
> can enforce that as you suggest.  But we can write our proposal in such
> a way that it will ultimately require that.  We don't need to do that for
> this version though.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 4:23 PM
> To: Martin Boyle; Phil Corwin; Olivier Crepin-Leblond; cwg-
> stewardship at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal
> and an alternative option
> 
> On 30/11/2014 19:51, Martin Boyle wrote:
> > As for the link to ICANN accountability:  with what we've got from
> > Frankfurt, I think we have a reasonable idea of what we need from
> > stream 1.  We cannot tell stream 1 what answer we want, but we can
> > tell it what issue(s) we need them to consider.  Again, if we seek to
> > engineer the whole piece, we risk simply missing the deadline and
> > trespassing on the responsibilities of others.
> 
> Martin,
> 
> This paragraph opened my eyes to a possible misunderstanding on my
> part of your position.
> 
> As you know, I think that resolving some (not all, but some critical)
> ICANN accountability issues is essential to a successful NTIA transition.
> After Frankfurt, I had begun to lose confidence that CCWG-
> Stewardship shared this view.
> 
> This was very disheartening to me. I have no objection to leaving
> ICANN accountability issues to be developed by CCWG-Accountability,
> so long as the essential Workstream 1 issues make it into the final ICG
> proposal to NTIA. But since CCWG-Accountability doesn't report to the
> ICG but the ICANN Board, I think it is incumbent on this working group
> to pick up on their output, and to ensure that ICG hears their output as
> part of the "naming community's proposal". Hence my request for
> some placeholder text in this proposal that CCWG-Accountability can
> fill out.
> 
> Seeing that there is no such placeholder text now, and having had
> several of my approaches to try to achieve such text rejected in
> Frankfurt, I had begun to think that the rest of this group wanted to
> exclude anything relating to ICANN's policy-making role from the
> ultimate transition proposal. That worried me greatly.
> 
> Your paragraph above gives me new hope that we can have a meeting
> of minds, so please let me check that I have understood you correctly.
> When you say "what we need from workstream 1", do you indeed
> mean that the proposal from the names community, that goes to ICG,
> and ultimately to NTIA, must include such proposals for ICANN
> accountability as CCWG-Accountability decide are an essential
> precondition for NTIA transition?
> 
> Or to put it another way, if CCWG-Accountability decide that ICANN
> must be contractually bound to certain commitments to ensure that
> gTLD policy remains transparent, community-based bottom policy (and
> so forth), are you open to the possibility of having those commitments
> written into the requirements that the PRT is to enforce on ICANN,
> alongside the requirements for the IANA functions that this CCWG has
> defined?
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog  London
> Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> 
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
> 
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship