[CWG-Stewardship] Update on the Integrated model.

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 06:38:01PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

> board"? i mean why should one be comfortable that the "community board"
> will be more accountable than the current ICANN board? 

It seems to me that there is sometimes conflation in our discussion.
The ICANN board has a manifold job, and as a result many people are
worried about "accountability" over the IANA function in a way I can't
understand.  (Note that I'm not suggesting Seun is making that
conflation; just that this question isn't fully explicit, and
depending on one's filter one might interpret the question
differently.)

The IANA function is really extremely small.  It's a critical but
basically boring book-keeping function.  As near as I can tell, there
have been practically no cases where there was any accusation that
IANA did not do exactly what it was supposed to do.  There were
historically some complaints that IANA didn't act expeditiously, and
there were _lots_ of historic complaints that an IANA function was
being used by ICANN to try to impose ICANN policies.  The former is an
SLA issue; the latter is actually a policy matter with enforcement
attempts in the policy side of the organization, and is not actually
an issue with IANA at all.  So in my opinion, accountability _for
IANA_ would help with the SLA stuff (and also with the case that IANA
"goes rogue") but would not help with the policy issues.

Does that match the accountability concerns others have?

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com