I share the view that the long term accountability of ICANN is fundamentally important, indeed critical to the success of the multi-stakeholder process. I have said that many times in the past and welcome this opportunity to actually create meaningful accountability for ICANN.
That said, the Board of Directors of any company has certain legal obligations to the institution and the stakeholders. In this case, these obligations include the need to ensure that accountability structures can be implemented and operated consistent with applicable law, the Bylaws, etc.. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that the Board have a voice in this process, including the right to conclude that one recommendation or another is not consistent with applicable law and fiduciary duties. As Bruce indicates in his email, the Board has committed to working with the community on areas of disagreement. Also, as Bruce suggests, NTIA has clearly linked the IANA transition to enhanced accountability.
I am mindful of the fact that while many participants in this process are lawyers, the experts group is still trying to identify appropriate legal resources for the work of the accountability CWG. I hope that situation is resolved soon.
J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary.
Follow Neustar:
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:16 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: Alissa Cooper (alcoop@cisco.com); Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Board treatment of the output of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
Dear Bruce,
Thank you very much for the message.
That is the area of our disagreement.
In my view and the view of my country, the long term accountability of ICANN is a fundamental and crucial matter and should not be subject to the Board VETO
I therefore have serious difficulties with that
Regards
Kavouss
2014-12-15 0:23 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:
Hello Kavouss,
>> In addition to what I informed you before is that , Under WS 1 they already agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Board Resolution adopted in LA I.E. ALLOWING THE BOARD TO VETO the content of the accountability whereas in case of ICG we have clearly mentioned that the Board should not modify the ICG work and send it as it was received to NTIA .However, should the Board has any comment, they may send it separately to NTIA
In case of CWG and WS1 of CCWG, it is not the case.
>From my understanding there are two separate but related activities.
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is developing a proposal to send to NTIA for the IANA transition. This proposal could incorporate the output of this Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. The ICANN Board's liaison on the ICG - Kuo Wei Wu - has conveyed to that group that the Board will send the report onto the NTIA without making any changes. The Board will send an accompanying letter which will either endorse the report, or it will express concerns that will already have been shared with the ICG through the various opportunities for public comment and dialogue.
This Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is developing recommendations for improvements of ICANN's accountability. These improvements can be made irrespective of whether the NTIA chooses to change its role with respect to the IANA function. The Board of ICANN is committed to making continuous improvements in its accountability mechanisms. The ICANN bylaws are clear on how the Board will approve policy recommendations from the supporting organisations (GNSO, ASO and ccNSO), but there is no explicit material in the bylaws for how the Board will process recommendations directly from a cross-community working group. The Board resolution passed in Los Angeles (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d) was intended to set clear expectations for how the recommendations would be treated. The assumption is that the Board will approve the recommendations from this group, and implement those recommendations. If the Board feels that it would not be in the public interest to implement a particular recommendation it has set out a process for working with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability to resolve the matter. The Board will not make any changes to a recommendation or report from this group. It is up to the CCWG to make or change any of its recommendations.
Separately, I expect that the NTIA could make the ICANN Board's approval and implementation of improved accountability mechanisms proposed by this group as a pre-condition to any transition.
I hope that helps.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board Liaison to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
DISCLAIMER :