Thoughtful consideration. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 6
On Jun 17, 2015, at 05:22, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
I am sure Avri will post this to our group but I just wanted to share the very interesting questions Larry poses us:
In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. Given that the draft proposal of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability will be a major focus of the discussions next week in Argentina, I would like to offer the following questions for stakeholders to consider:
The draft proposes new or modified community empowerment tools. How can the Working Group on Accountability ensure that the creation of new organizations or tools will not interfere with the security and stability of the DNS during and after the transition? Do new committees and structures create a different set of accountability questions? The draft proposal focuses on a membership model for community empowerment. Have other possible models been thoroughly examined, detailed, and documented? Has the working group designed stress tests of the various models to address how the multistakeholder model is preserved if individual ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees opt out? Similarly, has the working group developed stress tests to address the potential risk of capture and barriers to entry for new participants of the various models? Further, have stress tests been considered to address potential unintended consequences of “operationalizing” groups that to date have been advisory in nature? The draft proposal suggests improvements to the current Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP has been criticized for its own lack of accountability. How does the proposal analyze and remedy existing concerns with the IRP? In designing a plan for improved accountability, should the working group consider what exactly is the role of the ICANN Board within the multistakeholder model? Should the standard for Board action be to confirm that the community has reached consensus, and if so, what accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure the Board operates in accordance with that standard? The proposal is primarily focused on the accountability of the ICANN Board. Has the Working Group also considered if there need to be accountability improvements that would apply to ICANN management and staff or to the various ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees? All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: Wednesday, 17 June 2015 Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] A blog from NTIA To: "cwg-stewardship@icann.org" <cwg-stewardship@icann.org>
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-...
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive, InternetNZ +64-21-442-649 | jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community