[CWG-Stewardship] scope and accountability

Fri Nov 21 12:40:45 UTC 2014

I understand that the chair's statement may not yet have been posted. I am
in transit but will check ASAP. Jonathan
On 21 Nov 2014 13:12, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson at afilias.info> wrote:

> 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 Charter
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/CWG-DT%20Draft%20Charter%20-%2014%20August%202014%20Updated.doc?api=v2>,
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20141121/62bb9a68/attachment.html>