[CWG-Stewardship] My concerns with the draft proposal and an alternative option

[Avri Doria]

On 01-Dec-14 17:02, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> But my main reason for opposition is that I am far from convinced that
> all of the questions I and others have can be viably answered.

As far as I can tell they have been answered.  You just have not
accepted the answers you have been given.
which is of course your right.  But from my reading they have been
answered multiple times in different ways.
 
My answer invovled the parallel with the  BCP 101 from the IETF. where
the administrator of contracting Co is just that an administrator,
acting like the lawyer who only does what she has been instructed to do
by the PRT.  With the PRT being the multistakeholders of ICANN and
perhaps beyond that we are used to , but unfettered by the ability of
the Board to overrule their decisions. And the PRT being awoken
periodically and whenever the CSC felt there was a crisis for them to
handle.

You seem to have an issue with them not being a standing committee.  The
reason for that is to avoid them becoming ICANN like and acquiring new
functions because they were bored when they had nothing else to do.
Standing committees with nothing to do, find new stuff to do.  Hence the
CSC as an alarm to bring them into existence whenever necessary out of
period.

>
> I think that using the transition to force accountability with respect
> to policy IS out of scope. But I also think that SOME transition
> models will have the incidental benefit of better policy-making
> accountability.

It is not out of scope with forcing accountability for IANA.  A periodic
RFP is repsnsible for forcing IANA accountability whether it is at ICANN
or elsewhere.  And IANA accountability is in our charter.

avri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141201/2372c6e3/attachment.html>