[CWG-Stewardship] scope and accountability

Fri Nov 21 12:12:07 UTC 2014

Milton, Mathieu & Colleagues,

Some thoughts in relation to this topic:

First, having read Milton’s email below, I can’t see that I disagree with
any of it and it’s unfortunate if my wording from the Frankfurt meeting does
appear to do so or is taken to mean that I do.

With regard to where I believe we are currently in the work of the IANA
transition CWG, and recognising that this is still work in progress, I see
the following critical accountability levers:

1.       Operational accountability. This will be driven at the first level
by the IANA Customer Steering Committee and, to the extent that this
Committee does not achieve satisfactory outcomes, can be escalated to the
(Multistakeholder) IANA Periodic Review Team.

2.       Overall performance accountability. This will be monitored by the
IANA Periodic Review Team, both periodically and on an ad-hoc basis (in
response to escalation from the IANA Customer Steering Committee) and the
ultimate sanction of this group is twofold:

a.       The ability to terminate the contract mid-term (to the extent that
such contractual provisions are written into the contract)

b.      The ability to contract with a new provider at the term of the
contract (consistent with the contract and with processes to be determined
by the IANA Periodic Review Team).

Notwithstanding the above substantial accountability levers, there is the
issue highlighted from the Charter of the CWG by Milton i.e. as follows:

“The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a
parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While
maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central
to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements
required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely
accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless,
the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should
appropriately coordinate their work.”

Considering the above, I believe that the work of the IANA Stewardship CWG
to date, is largely on track in relation to the following charter provision:

“ 
 this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the
continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner
after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract 
 ”

However, I believe we do need more work here:

“Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and
should appropriately coordinate their work.”

And it is this second point which now needs to be picked up as a matter of
urgency and I’d welcome any guidance on this. One factor in doing so is that
the Accountability CWG has only very recently had its charter approved by
the chartering organisations.

Finally, please note the reference in the Chair’s Statement from the
Frankfurt meeting to the IANA Stewardship Charter and drawing attention to
the point of this email exchange as follows:

The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions met for
a face-to-face in Frankfurt, Germany on 19 – 20 November 2014. The highly
diverse CWG is one of the three groups submitting a proposal to the IANA
Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as part of the overall IANA
Stewardship Transition <https://www.icann.org/stewardship>  process. As
noted in the CWG
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/CWG-DT%20Draft%20
Charter%20-%2014%20August%202014%20Updated.doc?api=v2> Charter, the IANA
stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and
related process on enhancing ICANN accountability.

I look forward to further input, discussion and guidance in any event, and
especially if my understanding outlined above is inconsistent with that of
others.

Thanks,

Jonathan

From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr] 
Sent: 21 November 2014 09:15
To: cwg-stewardship at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] scope and accountability

Dear Milton, Dear colleagues,

As one of the co-chairs of the drafting team for the accountability cross
community working group, this message has obviously drawn my attention.
Milton, you raise an issue about the inter-relation between the two tracks,
but I must admit I have difficulties understanding both what triggered the
discussion and what the actual consequences might be. This is of course
because I have neither been in Frankfurt nor managed to read all the
transcripts. 

Could anyone be kind enough to point me to the relevant parts of the
transcript ? 

Best
Mathieu

Le 21/11/2014 00:15, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

Jonathan

I’ve been reading the transcripts of the Frankfurt meeting. Sorry I couldn’t
be there to correct what I saw as an oversight or error in the discussion.
Although others committed the same error, it was most concisely expressed in
a quote from you, so that’s why I am picking on you ;-) You said: 

“Then there's the broader ICANN accountability issue, which I think is
beyond the remit of this committee and into the next working group, except
to the extent it deals with accountability for IANA functions.” 

This implies that IANA accountability and ICANN accountability are two
completely separate things. The problem is that they are interrelated. This
interdependency is explicitly recognized in the ICG’s charter:

“The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a
parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While
maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central
to both processes, this group’s scope is focused on the arrangements
required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely
accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless,
the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should
appropriately coordinate their work.”

Of course the IANA transition process cannot fix all the accountability
issues in ICANN’s policy making process, nor do we want it to. But
“interrelated and interdependent” means that how we handle accountability in
the IANA transition will have direct impact on the enhanced accountability
process for the rest of ICANN. As a simple example, if the IANA transition
merely hands over control of IANA to ICANN with no oversight or separability
whatsoever, then the enhanced accountability CWG will have a _lot_ more
urgent work to do, especially in track 1. On the other hand, if the IANA
transition process allows the community to take IANA away from a misbehaving
ICANN, or otherwise leverages the control of IANA to ensure that ICANN
complies with certain good governance requirements, then the IANA transition
has implications for ICANN accountability, not just IANA accountability. 

The clear intent of the ICG charter is to recognize that both ICANN and IANA
accountability are related. The creation of two tracks in the ICANN
accountability CWG - one that must be completed before the IANA transition
is effectuated and the other involving reforms that can wait until after the
transition - is another explicit recognition of the interdependency of the
IANA and ICANN accountability. The simple fact is that the IANA transition
process _must_ take into account the broader implications of its proposed
changes for the overall accountability of ICANN.

I hope the CWG Frankfurt meeting’s failure to recognize the interdependency
this did not prevent it from making progress in other areas. 

Milton L Mueller

Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor

Syracuse University School of Information Studies

http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

Internet Governance Project

http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> 

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- 
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: 01 39 30 83 06
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
*****************************
ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 !
Notre nouvelle adresse est :
Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180
Montigny-le-Bretonneux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141121/c72b0ccc/attachment-0001.html>