[CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft

[Rinalia Abdul Rahim]

Yes, Martin.

Please also confirm that the "accountability processes" are those of ICANN
or related to ICANN.

Thanks!

Rinalia

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
wrote:

>  Thanks Rinalia:  yes, on re-reading I think that this does seem to have
> lost something in translation!  I guess it is the process that needs to be
> independent of the IANA functions operator, not the accountability itself.
> So if we said,
>
>
>
>    1. “*Independence of accountability*:  accountability *processes*
>    should be independent of the IANA Functions Operator and should assure the
>    accountability of the Operator to the inclusive global multistakeholder
>    community;”
>
>
>
> would this work, or am I missing something else?
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 05 March 2015 03:19
> *To:* Martin Boyle
> *Cc:* CWG Stewardship
> *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should
> Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft
>
>
>
> Hi.
>
> I find 5.ii not easy to understand. Can the text be improved for clarity?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rinalia
>
> On Mar 5, 2015 7:59 AM, "Martin Boyle" <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> And special thanks to Elise and Paul for their cooperation on g.ii (now
> 7.ii), Stephanie for some useful proposed wording for j (now 10), Maarten
> Simon for some comments and suggested edits and Erick for some interesting
> discussion on h.ii (now 8.ii).
>
>
>
> The result is perhaps a slightly more complicated document that it was on
> Tuesday evening!
>
>
>
> I propose that we look to:
>
>
>
> ·         Remove all the comments and accept all the editing that has not
> had any comment that is the side heading and paragraphs (using the new
> numbering) 2, 3, 5.i, 5.iv, 6.ii, 7 chapeau, 7.iii-vi, 8.i, 8.iii and 9.
>
> ·         See whether the suggested compromise on 7.ii is acceptable.
>
> ·         See whether the proposed text in 5.iii is acceptable.
>
> ·         In the light of Maarten’s comment on 5.vi, check whether
> maintaining the current text (including removing the square brackets) is
> acceptable.
>
> ·         See whether 6.iii should be retained and whether there is
> consensus to remove the square brackets.
>
> ·         See if the edits proposed for 7.i are acceptable.
>
> ·         See if Stephanie’s proposal for 10 is acceptable.
>
>
>
> If we have time I’d like to at least ask Erick to introduce the
> alternative he has proposed for 8.ii.  However, it is not proving to be an
> easy discussion so I propose to take this discussion off line as there is
> unlikely to be any resolution in time for or during tomorrow’s call.
>
>
>
> Thanks and I look forward to a constructive discussion tomorrow.
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150305/2232e208/attachment.html>