[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: ICANN Board Comments on Cross Community Working Group (CWG) Draft Transition Proposal for Naming Related Functions

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Chuck,

I like your formulation below:

"*I don't think any of us want to transfer the functions outside of ICANN.
We just want to make sure that we never have to*."

This highlights the need to balance between building ongoing accountability
mechanisms to ensure that things are functioning well versus building
separability mechanisms as the core accountability foundation.

The current CWG proposal is tending a bit too much towards the second
aspect in my view and does not lead to sufficient attention to the
practical way the IANA functions operate.

Rummaging through the early postings on the list Archives, I found this
prescient comment from Kieren:

*"IANA is not a stationary function and I think it would be smart to
recognize that. I am concerned that because we have a lot of policy
people and process people here but not many business folk that this
group may draw up wonderful new structures that just add more process
rather than focus on making the IANA functions a very efficient
machine with happy customers."*

Seems to be a remark that resonates with several of the comments submitted
in the last few days. At least we have obtained quite a strong consensus in
the comments regarding the public posting of requests. A concrete outcome.

Merry Christmas to all :-)

Bertrand



On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> That seems to be beside the point Christopher.  The one incidence resulted
> in better accountability.  I don't think any of us want to transfer the
> functions outside of ICANN.  We just want to make sure that we never have
> to.
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141223/c0f4d7f8/attachment.html>