[Internal-cg] scope language

[WUKnoben]

I also support this but have some reservartions to the strict obligation imposed: “...the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process” which could lead to an open-end discussion. Can we add: “...the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process as available”?


Wolf-Ulrich



From: Drazek, Keith 
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Milton L Mueller ; internal-cg at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] scope language

I support the language circulated by Milton. I’m also supportive of Paul’s suggestion that we not limit it to accountability alone. I made two suggested edits in blue below:

 

From: internal-cg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 8:57 AM
To: internal-cg at icann.org
Subject: [Internal-cg] scope language

 

The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA’s role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN’s policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process.  



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/attachments/20140717/68e8593b/attachment.html>