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

[Rinalia Abdul Rahim]

Martin,

I think we are on the same page.  My intervention is based on the
understanding that key documents in this transition process are translated
either officially or informally to inform various parts of the global
Internet community.  Principles are generally high on the priority list of
what people would be interested in knowing. The problem with being less
specific or more general is that it becomes more difficult to convey the
intended meaning in other languages.  I am OK with the sentence as you
amended.

Thanks.

Rinalia

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk>
wrote:

>  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>
> 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/20150306/56eb4121/attachment-0001.html>