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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think the point is that without the ability to ultimately pull the
contract, as the IETF can, for another provider, there can be no
accountability.

To rely on ICANN becoming other than what it is, an organization
controlled 100% by a Board that can change any of it rules anytime it
wishes, is probably far too optimistic, and certainly not something can
either be completed or guaranteed by the time we need an IANA solution.

Insisting on iron clad ICANN accountability as a precursor to transition
seems a way to stop the transition from happening in 2015.

I happen to believe that ICANN should hold the contract for a
significant period of time before another RFP and that it will hold it
for a long time after an RFP, but I beleive that without the promise of
an RFP in the future, there is little to stop the Board-Sr.Staff from
spinning any accountability solution we come up with into an empty box
checking exercise.  Both you and Olivier were on the ATRT and I believe
you have seen how slippery that whole process could be without the
anchor of an IANA contract that could be lost.

I know some argue for the nuclear option of an RFP on demand in case of
malfeasance or other dereliction of duty.  The problem with 'nuclear
options,' is that they never get put into action except in cases of real
dismal disaster.  I beleive a regualr RFP is a much better tool for
avoiding disaster as opposed to waiting for it to it.

I also understand that there may be a concern in At-Large community that
nothing could ever be as open and inclusive as ICANN is now, especially
with regard to user concerns.  I beleive the solution for that is to
make sure the process we transition to complies with multistakeholder
principles, i.e. bottom-up, open and inclusive &c., and not to just
accept that ICANN will continue becoming ever more complaint with
multistakeholder principles.  In fact I fear that without the periodic
RFP for the IANA contract, ICANN's commitment to the multistakeholder
principles may weaken in the face of other pressures.


avri

On 29-Nov-14 20:51, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Milton, I do not know of ANY ALAC or At-Large participants in the
> process who are opponents of strong ICANN accountability.
>
> Just because we do not agree with you that the ONLY way to achieve
> strong accountability is to be able to pull the IANA contract does not
> imply that we are against other forms of strong accountability.
>
> In fact, what we favour would not only ensure strong accountability
> for IANA functions, but for other aspects of ICANN as well - something
> that the proposal that you favour would not do.
>
> Please do not incorrectly characterize our position.
>
> Alan
>
> At 29/11/2014 01:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>> If we roll back to square one, as some of the opponents of strong
>> accountability in ALAC wish to do, what exactly would the CCWG be
>> able to do in their track one deliberations? They would indeed be
>> working in a vacuum.
>>
>> --MM
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141129/637b309c/attachment.html>