-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Co-Chairs, we had us a very good ISTACC call today and I raised my current two issues there, the breakneck pace and the IANA Function Manager accountability. For the latter, from our charter (the third sentence, the others provided for context): This process on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on the transition of the stewardship of the IANA functions through the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (hereinafter CWG-Stewardship). The CWG-Stewardship’s scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the IANA Functions Contract. Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability) is not within the scope of the CCWG-Accountability as it is being dealt with by the CWG-Stewardship. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work. Your Co-Chair Mathieu stated that he believes the CCWG can not or should not look at IANA related Accountability (or words to that effect, please correct me until we have the transcript) whereas I believe that the operative word here is the "administration" of the functions, not the functions themselves and in particular the decision making process of the Board. Never mind that I can not recall any debate on this issue in the plenum. I read that as we do not look at the "internal" IANA operations, ie how they do things. For example, one major issue of contention is or has been response time to requests, which as operational issue should be addressed by the CWG. Or my allegation of IANA staff leaning on incumbent or prospective ccTLD Managers or the Contacts. That would also be operational. But how the IANA Function Manager (ICANN at present) makes the actual decisions is most certainly within our scope and we need to address this. And I find that starting at the beginning helps. Hence my repeated request for a look at the (legal) foundation as to how a Californian corporation has been, is and will be empowered to make decisions that affect third parties, such as the ccTLDs, but not necessarily only them. The failure by the co-chairs to take this up or even to respond, borders on the deliberate. It's a bit difficult to address the Co-Chairs "through the chair", by the way :-)-O And, finally, it appears Rod Chehade has apologized, but I really would like to read the transcript of Dave Conrad's presentation he referred to so eloquently. I will liaise with CWG staff to find it. greetings, el -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIVAwUBVS7bDJcFHaN5RT+rAQLorQ/9EnLCX2OEiSWDzfrho1KSAm6a4W7cZVNy 0ohQcz7/eXX6IFFlcb0HFDYMINKxrJIbJ8OSQ946RbC1kSgigLxE7YFjwJcF7swk DQt+ohLsCE9BoxJ0Hdx81v9XDugQU3iZ1QQAbqdN9M203kSWk4PGvnBfIC7G0waN FvQOOR9d0FuzTQ1/g6Mlu6wzl01mwcM65n7Ys0ildAsyQ6iBNzR//5XisQ7x6R7K V+5bH6cXWsdnVcqEJ2X7jIfZV/fPQZJCr9dBBiiPGhVNhaevafRmHJP8hYBA3iqv fDWo84IpL4JBod5rvbLN0iTWT+EkJQJ/Fgn4zPPwpTjrxgvpiMGihbx1wjYWvv3O KwgJDNoK7RjrSjSyNS7blTPfdb7VmIXJlYA9BT4WLBNJJ/FNYOiTRMjHOHXhvS46 GDGcnVV56aYyOfYjd4XHrAFTuxql6R/QSnyVe8g5l9/b7fHUi9cmvwcOr1FP4Vfr wEKYRQq/4HSDnIsE2RVuLVMMlvb0h5X1BEzTtCOfcTdpo4wVd8hcOA0KWvIj7pUv GspPykk3nRycbg0JOP0/et+Sc6BZedPiXuFibLPqJzQrVI/B7K5peo5AIv7YMCk5 5g0rsqUm8CCEVDwGYxiMlTV92myD0Iv6Pc5SEduvuxUkDntWXRKLmF3nL6wVe8lP IYVDdnvgOug= =hGTx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----