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

[Martin Boyle]

Hi Rinalia.

I think this is associated with the discussion with Avri.  I’m not sure we should say whose accountability processes we are talking about in high level principles.  Building on the known or getting a common basis for accountability is certainly an attractive approach – it makes things easier to understand, for example – I think we do need to allow the CWG and/or the CCWG to decide what is the appropriate independent accountability process.

Best

Martin

From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim [mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com]
Sent: 05 March 2015 09:47
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

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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto: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/20150305/7d34af95/attachment.html>