[Internal-cg] US Government Accountability Office (GAO) interviews
narelle.clark at accan.org.au
Thu Dec 4 02:50:59 UTC 2014
This sounds very reasonable, however I would counsel that we at least have a collective 'think' about what sorts of responses might be appropriate, were we to be approached.
Simply on the basis that the questions are sound.
I am not suggesting we have lengthy discussions about it, nor try to form consensus views, merely that we consider the questions ourselves. We have enough on our plate already, but these questions should assist in forming our process for analysis. I am comfortable we have the issues covered in our RFP.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 December 2014 3:18 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller
> Cc: ICG
> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] US Government Accountability Office (GAO) interviews
> I agree with Milton and just reviewing the questions a number would not be
> appropriate for us tO address...
> Sent from my iPad
> > On Dec 2, 2014, at 7:30 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> > Hi, Lynn
> > Brenden Kuerbis and I were interviewed by the GAO staff in our capacity as
> principals in the oInternet Governance Project, so we probably have a more
> accurate idea what they are up to than the article you link to. We also were
> asked for names of others that would be good to talk to and provided some
> names of informed people, including some on the ICG.
> > The GAO is under Congressional direction and thus provides an easy and
> relatively benign way for Congress to involve itself in the transition. I would
> consider their report as background fact-finding and not an "audit." They will
> release their report and that will provide an independent perspective
> (independent of the executive branch) on what is happening. The emphasis is on
> the risks of the transition.
> > I would not advise the ICG to formally respond to the questions that are being
> publicized without being asked to; I think it looks defensive and pre-emptive,
> especially when we don't actually have a proposal yet. The best thing we can do
> is to have a good, airtight proposal with broad consensus reasonably on
> schedule. Once we have that, the PR battle will begin, and of course with or
> without the GAO we can expect various interest groups to take pot shots at
> whatever is proposed. That is when the need for "PR" comes in.
> > In this regard the GAO report may help, if it is reasonably objective it can allay
> some of the more lurid fears. Only time can tell how objective or biased their
> report will be, but certainly they are hearing from people who support as well as
> fear the transition.
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-
> >> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 7:04 AM
> >> To: ICG
> >> Subject: [Internal-cg] US Government Accountability Office (GAO)
> >> interviews
> >> From: http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-iana-oversight-transition-
> >> watch-more-voices-against-a-rushed-process-not-yet-independence-
> >> icann/
> >> Evidently, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been
> >> asked to interview key people in Washington DC over the IANA
> >> transition - and "the results are likely to form the basis for a
> >> number of hearings in the new year. This is understood to be an audit
> >> process, an act that has been missing in the transition discussions.
> >> The Audit is likey to result in very serious questions that could
> >> likely delay the ICANN independence."
> >> What about the ICG preparing a written response to some of these
> >> questions as it would be a good opportunity to clear up some
> >> misunderstandings about the IANA functions, and at the same time
> >> serve as a more useful reference than this likely very biased "audit".
> >> On a related point, I think the ICG needs some budget and PR-like
> >> resources in order to allow us to get some instructive communications
> >> out (being proactive) or at a minimum to respond to inaccurate
> >> reports, and of course not just from the US, so the requirement will
> >> be pretty heavy.
> >> I think this is critical for the success of the transition, and
> >> believe we need to do more to "get out there". In the end, hopefully
> >> not only will the IANA transition effort be well served, but so will
> >> the broader IG model and so many of the other principles we all
> >> believe so strongly in
> >> - multi-stakeholder, bottom-up, etc.
> >> Thoughts?
> >> Lynn
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Internal-cg mailing list
> >> Internal-cg at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-cg mailing list
> > Internal-cg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg