In regard to this statement-- " To me NTIA is ensuring through the IANA contract that the IANA technical functions are performed to the standard expected of the community – nothing more. The NTIA does not have any over-ride/veto powers on the strategic plan., and the US Government is a stakeholder in the ICANN community in the development of the strategic plan like everyone else. This is one of the reasons why the Board recommended that CCWG operate as a separate initiative to look at ways to improve accountability, and ensure that ICANN's strategic plan is in accordance with the wishes of the community." --I must respectfully dissent from the "nothing more" characterization. It is widely recognized that US control over the periodic re-awarding of the IANA contract conferred upon the US substantial restraining influence upon ICANN the organization that went far beyond performance of the IANA functions. Indeed, if that had not been the case, if the scope of the US role was indeed limited to assurance of proper performance of the IANA functions and "nothing more", then how could that unique US clerical role have grown into the "Irritant" described by Secretary Strickling; an irritant that led to the issuance of the Montevideo Statement and other actions designed to terminate and transition that role in the post-Snowden environment? It is up to the community designing the accountability measures to determine what is required to replace the constraining effect conferred upon the US by its unique counterparty role in the current IANA arrangement and, more importantly, to determine which of those new accountability measures must be finalized, accepted, and implemented in advance of the transition being consummated. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Zuck Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:08 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Additional Stress Tests to discuss I think the reason they often are tried together is that the community is looking for teeth for the accountability mechanisms, Bruce. The admittedly abstract "backstop" role that NITA played is part of what needs to be replaced. Whether IANA is the right tool is subject to debate but I think it's a mistake to take it off the table. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 12:14 AM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Additional Stress Tests to discuss Hello Steve, Regarding Street test #24 – you note that the NTIA could cancel its contract with ICANN if ICANN were to broaden its scope by changing its strategic plan when a new CEO is appointed. I can see that the community might want to be able to override the Board if it went outside of its mandate, but for the IANA functions I would assume this is only an issue if it meant that ICANN was no longer performing to the standards in the IANA contract. I.e. I don’t see this as directly connected to the NTIA transferring stewardship of IANA – but I do see that it fits into the ICANN accountability discussion. I see this as a bit of a common thread in discussions on the IANA transition – i.e. the “threat” that NTIA will cancel the contract if ICANN does something the community doesn’t like that is unrelated to the IANA function. To me NTIA is ensuring through the IANA contract that the IANA technical functions are performed to the standard expected of the community – nothing more. The NTIA does not have any over-ride/veto powers on the strategic plan., and the US Government is a stakeholder in the ICANN community in the development of the strategic plan like everyone else. This is one of the reasons why the Board recommended that CCWG operate as a separate initiative to look at ways to improve accountability, and ensure that ICANN's strategic plan is in accordance with the wishes of the community. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4299/9172 - Release Date: 02/24/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.