Update of document on definition & scope
Dear Colleagues, As you will remember, our draft document was circulated to the Advisors for feedback after our meeting in Frankfurt. You will find the latest version attached, both in edit as well as clean mode. The document has benefitted from substantial and very well documented input from Advisors, and I believe it now provides a solid basis for our future report and call for comments. In the name of the co-chairs, I want to express our gratitude to all contributors. The various versions will be added to the Wiki shortly. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Hello Mathieu, Thanks very much for this excellent document. I've made a few suggested edits in the redlined version (attached). Thanks, Robin On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you will remember, our draft document was circulated to the Advisors for feedback after our meeting in Frankfurt. You will find the latest version attached, both in edit as well as clean mode.
The document has benefitted from substantial and very well documented input from Advisors, and I believe it now provides a solid basis for our future report and call for comments. In the name of the co-chairs, I want to express our gratitude to all contributors.
The various versions will be added to the Wiki shortly.
Best,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
<20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.docx><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Colleagues, Attached is the latest version taking into account Robin's inputs. Alice, can you update the wiki please ? Best Mathieu Le 07/03/2015 00:59, Robin Gross a écrit :
Hello Mathieu,
Thanks very much for this excellent document. I've made a few suggested edits in the redlined version (attached).
Thanks, Robin
On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you will remember, our draft document was circulated to the Advisors for feedback after our meeting in Frankfurt. You will find the latest version attached, both in edit as well as clean mode.
The document has benefitted from substantial and very well documented input from Advisors, and I believe it now provides a solid basis for our future report and call for comments. In the name of the co-chairs, I want to express our gratitude to all contributors.
The various versions will be added to the Wiki shortly.
Best,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
<20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.docx><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Thank you, Mathieu - The documents may be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Drafts+for+CCWG-Accountabi... Kind regards Alice From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:55 AM To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update of document on definition & scope Dear Colleagues, Attached is the latest version taking into account Robin's inputs. Alice, can you update the wiki please ? Best Mathieu Le 07/03/2015 00:59, Robin Gross a écrit : Hello Mathieu, Thanks very much for this excellent document. I've made a few suggested edits in the redlined version (attached). Thanks, Robin On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote: Dear Colleagues, As you will remember, our draft document was circulated to the Advisors for feedback after our meeting in Frankfurt. You will find the latest version attached, both in edit as well as clean mode. The document has benefitted from substantial and very well documented input from Advisors, and I believe it now provides a solid basis for our future report and call for comments. In the name of the co-chairs, I want to express our gratitude to all contributors. The various versions will be added to the Wiki shortly. Best, -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** <20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.docx><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Thank you Mathieu and everyone who has worked on this document. This is a bit wordy and is basically thinking aloud for sharing a perspective with colleagues here in the CCWG. I've read the paper a couple of times over this morning and in thinking about the whole of our work, and our links with the CWG's work, I have been mulling on the following question: How can stakeholders assure themselves of having the means to hold ICANN to account, following the end of the IANA contract? This comes to an underlying question of "who should have the power?" Is this "power" question our paper should address more explicitly? Is it a question we could ask of the advisors? It's a question that seems implicit in the document and in much of the detail we've been working on (in both workstreams), and in some of the debates that have been complicating the CWG's work. If you look at all this across the whole scope of ICANN's role, the protocol and numbers communities are saying "we have the power" as stakeholders - that's why their transition proposals include contracts/MOUs with ICANN as the service provider of the IANA functions. Names hasn't decided yet, but the CWG is working on that question in respect of IANA. For our CCWG, a question we have to answer about ICANN's general accountability is "who has the power to hold the corporation to account?" In doing so, we won't be able to ignore the question of whether this can be done entirely within ICANN's structures, or whether a wider set of structures is needed. That's the issue that underpins debates like: - should the power to remove the ICANN Board be vested in a community grouping, or simply be a procedure followed by ICANN bodies, and anyway is either option available under California law? - does the IANA stewardship transition for names need an external trust or contract co to make accountability work? I wonder whether this paper deals explicitly enough with the question of power. I looked at the NetMundial text in particular and wonder about the fact that most of the stakeholders in the multistakeholder environment are accountable to someone - members, or stakeholders, or national governments, or shareholders, whatever. Most of the global institutions are either state-based or connected to such (e.g. the IGF), or have various sorts of membership structures. These linkages keep them all accountable in one way or another. The global organisations that don't have this seem to be things like FIFA or the International Olympic Committee.... entities that don't hold positive lessons for us in designing a post-NTIA-contract settlement for ICANN, except perhaps as warnings to us about what doesn't work. Anyhow, food for thought perhaps. best Jordan On 13 March 2015 at 22:32, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you, Mathieu - The documents may be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Drafts+for+CCWG-Accountabi... Kind regards Alice
From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:55 AM To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Alice Jansen < alice.jansen@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update of document on definition & scope
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is the latest version taking into account Robin's inputs.
Alice, can you update the wiki please ?
Best Mathieu
Le 07/03/2015 00:59, Robin Gross a écrit :
Hello Mathieu,
Thanks very much for this excellent document. I've made a few suggested edits in the redlined version (attached).
Thanks, Robin
On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you will remember, our draft document was circulated to the Advisors for feedback after our meeting in Frankfurt. You will find the latest version attached, both in edit as well as clean mode.
The document has benefitted from substantial and very well documented input from Advisors, and I believe it now provides a solid basis for our future report and call for comments. In the name of the co-chairs, I want to express our gratitude to all contributors.
The various versions will be added to the Wiki shortly.
Best,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
<20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.docx><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *A better world through a better Internet *
Fully endorse points raised by Jordan. To further add, a question is Whom should ICANN Board directly be accountable to for its actions? Does external accountability require new institutional mechanism, or can existing provisions be leveraged? Best Regards, Rahul Sharma On 14 March 2015 at 07:26, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Thank you Mathieu and everyone who has worked on this document.
This is a bit wordy and is basically thinking aloud for sharing a perspective with colleagues here in the CCWG.
I've read the paper a couple of times over this morning and in thinking about the whole of our work, and our links with the CWG's work, I have been mulling on the following question:
How can stakeholders assure themselves of having the means to hold ICANN to account, following the end of the IANA contract?
This comes to an underlying question of "who should have the power?"
Is this "power" question our paper should address more explicitly?
Is it a question we could ask of the advisors?
It's a question that seems implicit in the document and in much of the detail we've been working on (in both workstreams), and in some of the debates that have been complicating the CWG's work.
If you look at all this across the whole scope of ICANN's role, the protocol and numbers communities are saying "we have the power" as stakeholders - that's why their transition proposals include contracts/MOUs with ICANN as the service provider of the IANA functions.
Names hasn't decided yet, but the CWG is working on that question in respect of IANA.
For our CCWG, a question we have to answer about ICANN's general accountability is "who has the power to hold the corporation to account?" In doing so, we won't be able to ignore the question of whether this can be done entirely within ICANN's structures, or whether a wider set of structures is needed.
That's the issue that underpins debates like:
- should the power to remove the ICANN Board be vested in a community grouping, or simply be a procedure followed by ICANN bodies, and anyway is either option available under California law?
- does the IANA stewardship transition for names need an external trust or contract co to make accountability work?
I wonder whether this paper deals explicitly enough with the question of power.
I looked at the NetMundial text in particular and wonder about the fact that most of the stakeholders in the multistakeholder environment are accountable to someone - members, or stakeholders, or national governments, or shareholders, whatever. Most of the global institutions are either state-based or connected to such (e.g. the IGF), or have various sorts of membership structures. These linkages keep them all accountable in one way or another.
The global organisations that don't have this seem to be things like FIFA or the International Olympic Committee.... entities that don't hold positive lessons for us in designing a post-NTIA-contract settlement for ICANN, except perhaps as warnings to us about what doesn't work.
Anyhow, food for thought perhaps.
best Jordan
On 13 March 2015 at 22:32, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you, Mathieu - The documents may be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Drafts+for+CCWG-Accountabi... Kind regards Alice
From: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Reply-To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:55 AM To: Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>, Alice Jansen < alice.jansen@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Update of document on definition & scope
Dear Colleagues,
Attached is the latest version taking into account Robin's inputs.
Alice, can you update the wiki please ?
Best Mathieu
Le 07/03/2015 00:59, Robin Gross a écrit :
Hello Mathieu,
Thanks very much for this excellent document. I've made a few suggested edits in the redlined version (attached).
Thanks, Robin
On Mar 5, 2015, at 5:54 AM, Mathieu Weill wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
As you will remember, our draft document was circulated to the Advisors for feedback after our meeting in Frankfurt. You will find the latest version attached, both in edit as well as clean mode.
The document has benefitted from substantial and very well documented input from Advisors, and I believe it now provides a solid basis for our future report and call for comments. In the name of the co-chairs, I want to express our gratitude to all contributors.
The various versions will be added to the Wiki shortly.
Best,
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
<20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - clean.docx><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.pdf><20150305 CCWG Accountability - problem definition - advisor feedback - redline.docx>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (5)
-
Alice Jansen -
Jordan Carter -
Mathieu Weill -
Rahul Sharma -
Robin Gross