Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears@cdt.org> wrote:
Not to belabor this much more, and I may be being pedantic...
It appears to read as if WS1 is about putting in place mechanisms that "provide the community with confidence" but not specifically about putting in place accountability mechanisms or measures. There is a big difference between putting in in place process mechanisms to provide confidence (as it now seems to imply) and putting in place actual accountability mechanisms which is what the original definition suggested. The second definition is fine for so long as it explicitly includes the first as well.
It might be better if it read something like:
Work Stream 1: is focused on mechanisms that 1) enhance ICANN's accountability and must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition, and 2) that provide the community with confidence that any accountability measures that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity.
Matthew
On 1/15/2015 10:40 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
I agree with Paul, Mathieu etc - the Charter language is the skeleton. The language proposed sets out to characterise why we would select items - i.e. why they have to be done before the transition.
We have to set out transparently the criteria we are using to decide what has to be in place. This language helps do that.
bestJordan
On 16 January 2015 at 04:17, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,I do not understand who agreed with whomWhat has been changed from the Charter.I personally fully agree with the followingQuote" in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability ( in relation with work stream 1 of CCWG ,for three distinct areas , Naming, Numbers and Protocols, including parameter ) could be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur."Unquote
Kavouss
2015-01-15 16:06 GMT+01:00 Edward Morris <emorris@milk.toast.net>:
_______________________________________________+1Paul has eloquently expressed my views in a manner far superior to anything I could write. Thanks.One could argue that our current system of accountability and transparency (reconsideration, Appeal, CEP, IR, DIDP), with some tweaks, should actually be sufficient going forward. It looks great: on paper. The problem is that a system designed for redress (per Bruce) actually functions as a system of review (per Robin), and a rather cursory review system at that. We simply must have mechanisms designed to ensure that we have real systems of accountability, ones that does not rely on the good faith and open-mindedness of any particular Board or staff member or group, in place before the transition can be allowed to occur.-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>
To: "'Tijani BEN JEMAA'" <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>, <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:22:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definition
Respetful disagreement. I think the way it describes types of mechanisms in the “new” definition is exactly what needs to be in place before the Stewardship transition takes place. Put another way, I think that the exposition in WS1 precisely describes the commitments that MUST be made before a transition is allowed to occur. More importantly, I think there is growing consensus across the community that this is so. To state it affirmatively – in the absence “mechanisms [that] would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community” the IANA Functions transition should not occur.Paul**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***509 C St. NEWashington, DC 20002Paul RosenzweigSkype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066From: Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:53 AM
To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Work Streams definitionDear all,I read again the new proposed definition of the Work Streams, and I found it too different from the one in our charter:In the charter:· Work Stream 1: focused on mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the time frame of the IANA Stewardship Transition;· Work Stream 2: focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship TransitionThe new proposal:· Work Stream 1 mechanisms are those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism that would further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity.· All other consensus items could be in Work Stream 2, provided there are mechanisms in WS1 adequate to force implementation of WS2 items despite resistance from ICANN management and board.I don’t believe that we are allowed to change any part of the charter without going back to the chartering organizations and ask for their approval.On the other hand, the separation of WS 1 and WS 2 was for the purpose of having the accountability mechanisms necessary before the transition done in time, and the new definition doesn’t satisfy this requirementI would prefer stay with the charter definition for all those reasons--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tijani BEN JEMAAExecutive DirectorMediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)Phone: + 216 41 649 605Mobile: + 216 98 330 114Fax: + 216 70 853 376--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability2 mailing list
Ccwg-accountability2@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability2
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive
InternetNZ
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community