[Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Wed Oct 15 14:57:28 UTC 2014
My intention is not to be 'hard' or confrontational. Neither do i suggest that we should project that attitude. I am just concerned that we stay focussed on our particular deliverable and project that image.
The only way i personally see a definite need for us to coordinate with any icann accountability process would be if the operational communities choose to reference it in their proposals while it has not yet produced a final result. I literally see no other reason for coordination. If that does not happen there is no way how these processes would influence any language or semanics in our deliverable.
That does not mean we should close our eyes. But it does mean we should stay focussed on *our* work and expand our energy on working proactively with the operational communities and not waste it on coordination that we need much much less.
I am willing to reconsider my advice/position one the basis of concrete ways any coordination would influence the content of our deliverable.
Hoping i can make at least par of Friday's meeting remotely.
Sent from a handheld device.
> On 15.10.2014, at 15:01, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com> wrote:
> I would take a slightly softer tone than yours, as we do not wish to suggest that the ICANN accountability work has no relevance to ours. We will need to coordinate with that group as part of our work. We need to be very clear, however, that we are not driving that work and do not control its agendas or timelines and therefore are not in position to address it in any substantive way.
>> On 10/15/2014 1:10 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>> i understand the dynamics of 'icann week'. i also sense the desire of the crowd to link everything and anything as well as a good number of competing "complications departments" at work. my advice is to resist that very pressure and to project that icg is very focused on our deliverable and its particular content related to accountability. we are not here to discuss icann accountability or to create a web of additional linkages that complicate our specific work. if ntia wants to base their decision to withdraw on other input besides our deliverable, that should not be our concern. we should be focused on our specific work. ultimately we will be judged by the quality of that one document and we should put our energy into working with the operational communities to produce that one document and with everyone else to explain that one document and to make sure there are no show-stopping concerns about that one document. this is the approach i advise and the one i advise to project.
>> again, € 0.02
>> Sent from a hand held device.
>> On 14.10.2014, at 20:56, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> Agreed. The only thing I would say is that people are very interested in #3 and #4. I got questions about them both in meetings and in the hallway yesterday. So I don't think we can avoid talking about them altogether, even if we haven't fully sorted out how we will handle them.
>>> On Oct 14, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote:
>>>> please stress point 2 above all else and add a good dose of lynn's first para about focus. we should project that we are focussed on our specific deliverable above anything else. in a "one of a dozen statements" situation it pays to leave all non-essentials off. if people ask about them, you get more airtime to answer those in a susequent round. it is most important to get a clear message out and not obscure it in any way. to my ears your points after 2 have a strong subtext suggesting that we might become creative. something we have agreed to avoid.
>>>> so far my €0.02
>>>> Sent from a hand held device.
>>>> On 14.10.2014, at 16:50, Alissa Cooper <alissa at cooperw.in> wrote:
>>>>> I have been invited to participate in the Thursday community session about enhancing ICANN accountability <http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-enhancing-accountability>. There is a large panel of speakers and I will have a 5-minute slot. I have been asked to talk about how the ICG plans to link to the parallel accountability process and what discussions have taken place about this so far.
>>>>> Obviously we have been discussing this a bit amongst ourselves in the context of the proposal finalization process and the FAQ, both of which are on our agenda for further discussion on Friday. We also have a slot on Friday to discuss how we will liaise with the accountability CCWG. While the results of these discussions are TBD, I think there are a few points I can make, slightly expanding on what is in the FAQ:
>>>>> 1. Our charter recognizes that maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to the transition process.
>>>>> 2. The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and accountability — writ large, i.e., "all the ways in which oversight is conducted over the IANA functions operator’s provision of the services and activities” — in their proposals.
>>>>> 3. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an analysis and assessment of their implications for ICANN accountability. We are still discussing what this analysis and assessment will entail, and this will depend somewhat on the extent to which ICANN accountability is the focus of one or more community proposals.
>>>>> 4. We will be having further discussion on Friday to determine how we will procedurally liaise with the accountability CCWG, including how and when we might communicate the analysis/assessment described in (3).
>>>>> Internal-cg mailing list
>>>>> Internal-cg at icann.org
>> Internal-cg mailing list
>> Internal-cg at icann.org
> Internal-cg mailing list
> Internal-cg at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Internal-cg