[CWG-Stewardship] Agenda item 5 - Alternate proposals

Thu Dec 18 21:36:23 UTC 2014

I don't see independent oversight and 
separability of the IANA contract on the one hand 
and "real multistakeholder accountability" at 
ICANN on the other as mutually exclusive either. 
Where we differ is that I believe that the latter 
precludes the need for the former.

Alan

At 18/12/2014 06:12 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
>Hi
>
>I don't see independent oversight and 
>separability of the IANA contract on the one 
>hand and "real multistakeholder accountability" 
>at ICANN on the other as mutually exclusive or 
>that one has to be weakened or sacrificed on the 
>promise of the enhanced accountability of the 
>other.  I see them both as desirable, indeed 
>essential, to ensuring appropriate levels of 
>accountability and performance once the USG 
>steps back from its administrative and 
>stewardship roles.   I agree that we need to be 
>very pragmatic about the structure and 
>modalities of the IANA proposal - and that these 
>are things we need to start working through asap 
>- but we should not underestimate the importance 
>of separability and independent oversight.
>
>Matthew
>
>
>On 12/18/2014 3:55 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>I note that item 5 on the agenda for the 18 
>>December meeting is "Due consideration of 
>>alternative proposal (not to exclude other proposals)".
>>
>>I also note that there has been significant 
>>discussion about the CWG Stewardship and the 
>>CCWG Accountability, their inter-relationship and co-dependency.
>>
>>In light of this, I would like to bring the 
>>CWGs attention to a recent e-mail on the CCWG list (copied below).
>>
>>Although I believe that the ALAC proposal ( 
>>http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/msg00011.html 
>>) is the only such alternative presented here, 
>>it is not alone. I am not advocating the exact 
>>details of the proposal referenced in the 
>>message (see 
>>http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/ 
>>and 
>><http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-plan-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability>http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-plan-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability), 
>>but it does demonstrate that we are not unique 
>>in wanting a far simpler mode for the new IANA 
>>coupled with real multistakeholder accountability in ICANN.
>>
>>I believe that the CCWG *WILL* deliver and I 
>>think that we need to factor that into our 
>>deliberations. Specifically, is there really a 
>>need for the complexity, cost and associated 
>>issues of Contract Co. given the same level of 
>>control could be provided by a change such as this?
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>===================
>>>From: Steve DelBianco 
>>><mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org><sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
>>>To: Accountability Cross Community 
>>><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>>Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:20:43 +0000
>>>Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Op-Ed from ITIF 
>>>regarding permanent cross-community group as ultimate authority
>>>
>>>
>>>This pertains to our discussion yesterday 
>>>about a permanent, cross-community 
>>>"˜Membership" group to hold ICANN board and 
>>>management accountable to the community.  It 
>>>was described this way in 
>>><https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accountability%20suggestions%20%5Bdraft%203%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1418610739000&api=v2>draft3 
>>>for work area 2:
>>>
>>>Amend ICANN bylaws to recognize a permanent 
>>>cross-community representative structure (all 
>>>ACs, SOs, Constituencies) with authority to:
>>>
>>>Appoint members of Affirmation review teams
>>>Review a board decision, or resolve a dispute 
>>>(option to use independent panel)
>>>Approve changes to ICANN bylaws or Articles, with 2/3 approval
>>>Approve annual proposed ICANN budget
>>>Recall one or all ICANN Board members
>>>
>>>One of the groups 
>>><http://www.innovationfiles.org/key-principles-for-the-icann-transition/>proposing 
>>>a community of stakeholders as ultimate 
>>>authority posted a relevant 
>>><http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227375-icann-transition-plan-needs-new-ideas-to-ensure-accountability>Op-Ed 
>>>in a Washington paper today.  Daniel Castro of 
>>>the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) wrote:
>>>California state law applies since ICANN is a 
>>>registered nonprofit corporation in the state. 
>>>As such, California law allows nonprofit 
>>>organizations to have statutory members. 
>>>Gunnarson suggests that one way to provide an 
>>>effective check on the ICANN board's power is 
>>>to create statutory members of ICANN with 
>>>extensive authority over the board. This 
>>>authority could include removing board 
>>>members, overturning board decisions, etc. The 
>>>statutory members would likely include the 
>>>chairs of the various ICANN "supporting 
>>>organizations" and "advisory committees," such 
>>>as the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) 
>>>responsible for IP address policy and the 
>>>Country Code Name Supporting Organization 
>>>(ccNSO) responsible for managing the country 
>>>code top-level domains. To ensure that the 
>>>statutory members do not hold too much sway, 
>>>their actions could be limited to situations 
>>>where there is a supermajority (i.e., consensus).
>>>
>>>We welcome further elaboration of legal basis 
>>>to enable this modification to ICANNâ€™s 
>>>bylaws in conformance with California law.
>>>
>>>Steve DelBianco
>>>Executive Director
>>>NetChoice
>>>
>>><http://www.netchoice.org/>http://www.NetChoice.org 
>>>and <http://blog.netchoice.org/>http://blog.netchoice.org
>>+1.202.420.7482
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CWG-Stewardship mailing list
>><mailto:CWG-Stewardship at icann.org>CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>
>--
>Matthew Shears
>Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
><mailto:mshears at cdt.org>mshears at cdt.org
>+ 44 771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141218/3aae9a9b/attachment-0001.html>