[Internal-cg] ICG FAQ - Final ..
manal at tra.gov.eg
Wed Oct 8 10:10:53 UTC 2014
Dear All ..
Please find attached, and in Dropbox, a clean final version of the ICG
We still need to insert the referenced email address before developing a
PDF version ..
I have also inserted a link to the most recent 'Proposal Finalization
Process' file .. not sure how this will work with future versions ..
I understand that the answer to Q17 on coordination with the
accountability process is not 100% agreed by everyone but I believe the
last draft provided by Milton was quite accepted to move forward and
continue the discussion ..
Thank you all for your help and cooperation to get this out before the
LA meeting ..
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:00 AM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: Manal Ismail; ICG
Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ - Question 18, accountability
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley at vigilsec.com] I still worry a bit
> about the ICG conducting an analysis. If the names community has
> achieved consensus, the only question remaining for the ICG is to
> determine if there are gaps.
Disagree strongly. "Coordination" with the broader ICANN accountability
process is required by the charter and we cannot coordinate if we do not
analyze the accountability arrangements as a whole that are coming out
of the OC proposals and liaise with them on its implications for their
process. As noted in my previous message, if we don't do this we are
risking the entire transition being derailed.
Furthermore, we do have to assess accountability holistically, as each
OC will develop plans independently. Just as we need to look for
technical incompatibilities or oversights, we need to do that for
It's not just the names community that has to worry about
accountability, by the way. There are major issues with numbers, too.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 75776 bytes
More information about the Internal-cg