[CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting
Dear Colleagues, During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work. The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following : a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1. c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against). We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt. Your comments and feedbacks are welcome. Best regards, and happy new year to all of you ! -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL For the Co-chairs mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Mathieu Thank you very much for the proposal. I have no comment to add at this stage. However, I am seriously concerned about the proposed action by some of our colleagues to write to the NBoard and get permission which area we should work and which area we should not work. Once again we are an independent entity, the Board Liaison could at any stage comment on the scope of our activity. Pls therefroe do not take any action in regard with upfront dialogue with Board Read my earlier commentzs Regards Kavouss 2015-01-01 11:32 GMT+01:00 Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>:
Dear Colleagues,
During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work.
The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following :
a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1. c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against).
We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt.
Your comments and feedbacks are welcome.
Best regards, and happy new year to all of you !
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL For the Co-chairsmathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Mathieu You are, of course, the Co-Chair and you will have to figure out how to interact with the Board. I hope, however, that you will not be reluctant to make the Board accountable. I can see the headline here in the US now “ICANN Accountability Board Not Even Willing To Ask Questions.” Frankly, I would write it myself ….. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:33 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting Dear Colleagues, During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work. The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following : a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1. c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against). We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt. Your comments and feedbacks are welcome. Best regards, and happy new year to all of you ! -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL For the Co-chairs mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill *****************************
Dear co-chairs, (through the co-chairs) English is only my third language and I am not that familiar with reading between the lines of US new-speak, and hence need your assistance in determining wether my understanding of this being a threat if doesn't get his way is correct, and if so whether it is acceptable under the charter? greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 1, 2015, at 22:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Mathieu
You are, of course, the Co-Chair and you will have to figure out how to interact with the Board. I hope, however, that you will not be reluctant to make the Board accountable. I can see the headline here in the US now “ICANN Accountability Board Not Even Willing To Ask Questions.” Frankly, I would write it myself …..
Paul
**NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:33 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting
Dear Colleagues,
During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work.
The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following :
a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1. c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against).
We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt.
Your comments and feedbacks are welcome.
Best regards, and happy new year to all of you !
-- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL For the Co-chairs mathieu.weill@afnic.fr Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Paul What do you see in US NOW May you please forward that to us .At least I do not have access to that information. Kavouss 2015-01-01 23:19 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear co-chairs,
(through the co-chairs)
English is only my third language and I am not that familiar with reading between the lines of US new-speak, and hence need your assistance in determining wether my understanding of this being a threat if doesn't get his way is correct, and if so whether it is acceptable under the charter?
greetings, el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 1, 2015, at 22:38, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Mathieu
You are, of course, the Co-Chair and you will have to figure out how to interact with the Board. I hope, however, that you will not be reluctant to make the Board accountable. I can see the headline here in the US now “ICANN Accountability Board Not Even Willing To Ask Questions.” Frankly, I would write it myself …..
Paul
***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>] *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:33 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting
Dear Colleagues,
During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work.
The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following :
a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1.
c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against).
We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt.
Your comments and feedbacks are welcome.
Best regards, and happy new year to all of you !
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
For the Co-chairs
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Kavouss I am not necessarily the best or only observer of US policy regarding ICANN. And as you know, our Congress has been in recess for the last several weeks for the holiday so right now very little is happening. What I can advise is that, as has already been reported, the Congress passed a law late last year (which the President agreed to) that prohibited the NTIA from spending any money to make the ICANN transition happen. The text of the said that the funds approved by Conggress cannot be used by the NTIA to "relinquish [its] responsibility… with respect to Internet domain name system functions… and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA] functions." I take that, at a minimum, as a statement of caution from Congress. The House of Representatives (our lower house) held two hearings regarding the transition early last year (links http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/4/hearing-should-the-dept-of-comme... and http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/ensuring-security-stability-resilien...) when the announcement was first made. And this editorial from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-must-ensure-the-internet-has-good-...) reflects, I think the “general consensus” view in Washington (if there is such a thing). Of course things change. Opinion will very much depend on what this group and ICANN wind up proposing. My best guess is that there will be further hearings on the matter this Spring in both the House of Representatives and in our upper chamber, the Senate and that, in those forums, the work of this group will be examined. I hope that helps as well Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:37 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting Dear Paul What do you see in US NOW May you please forward that to us .At least I do not have access to that information. Kavouss 2015-01-01 23:19 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na <mailto:el@lisse.na> >: Dear co-chairs, (through the co-chairs) English is only my third language and I am not that familiar with reading between the lines of US new-speak, and hence need your assistance in determining wether my understanding of this being a threat if doesn't get his way is correct, and if so whether it is acceptable under the charter? greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 1, 2015, at 22:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Mathieu You are, of course, the Co-Chair and you will have to figure out how to interact with the Board. I hope, however, that you will not be reluctant to make the Board accountable. I can see the headline here in the US now “ICANN Accountability Board Not Even Willing To Ask Questions.” Frankly, I would write it myself ….. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:33 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting Dear Colleagues, During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work. The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following : a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1. c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against). We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt. Your comments and feedbacks are welcome. Best regards, and happy new year to all of you ! -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL For the Co-chairs mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Adding to Paul’s thoughts – The US government funding bill for FY 2015 enacted and signed by the President at the end of the last Congress a few weeks ago prohibits NTIA from spending any funds on the IANA transition through September 30, 2014 and also requires NTIA to provide Congress with 45 days’ notice of any intent to transition the functions – that latter provision has no expiration date. These provisions were a compromise between a Republican House and Democratic Senate; both chambers will be under Republican control for the next two years so any future legislative language on this, should there be any, could be different. Some have opined (and I believe Paul is in this camp, but I will let him speak for himself) believe that the just enacted language has a loophole that would not prevent the NTIA from simply letting the IANA contract expire. But that raises the question of what happens to control of the IANA functions if the current contract is not extended or transferred? Some think they could permanently fall into ICANN’s control if that were to happen. I disagree, believing that as the contracting party they revert to US control in the absence of a contract. But as a practical matter I do not expect NTIA to take such a route – not only would it be a very confrontational move that could have very adverse effects for the funding of other Department of Commerce operations, but it would be contrary to the stated intent of NTIA to only make the transfer under a transition plan developed by the multistakeholder community and accompanied by accountability enhancements. As to Congressional oversight, my best guesstimate based on current information is that the Commerce and Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate will all hold one or more oversight hearings on the progress of and outlook for the transition plan, that the work of this CWG and the Accountability CCWG will be reviewed, and that the first of those hearings could occur as early as January. Best to all, Philip 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 From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 6:24 PM To: 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' Cc: 'Lisse Eberhard'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting Dear Kavouss I am not necessarily the best or only observer of US policy regarding ICANN. And as you know, our Congress has been in recess for the last several weeks for the holiday so right now very little is happening. What I can advise is that, as has already been reported, the Congress passed a law late last year (which the President agreed to) that prohibited the NTIA from spending any money to make the ICANN transition happen. The text of the said that the funds approved by Conggress cannot be used by the NTIA to "relinquish [its] responsibility… with respect to Internet domain name system functions… and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA] functions." I take that, at a minimum, as a statement of caution from Congress. The House of Representatives (our lower house) held two hearings regarding the transition early last year (links http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/4/hearing-should-the-dept-of-comme... and http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/ensuring-security-stability-resilien...) when the announcement was first made. And this editorial from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-must-ensure-the-internet-has-good-...) reflects, I think the “general consensus” view in Washington (if there is such a thing). Of course things change. Opinion will very much depend on what this group and ICANN wind up proposing. My best guess is that there will be further hearings on the matter this Spring in both the House of Representatives and in our upper chamber, the Senate and that, in those forums, the work of this group will be examined. I hope that helps as well Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:37 PM To: Dr Eberhard W Lisse Cc: <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; Lisse Eberhard Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting Dear Paul What do you see in US NOW May you please forward that to us .At least I do not have access to that information. Kavouss 2015-01-01 23:19 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na<mailto:el@lisse.na>>: Dear co-chairs, (through the co-chairs) English is only my third language and I am not that familiar with reading between the lines of US new-speak, and hence need your assistance in determining wether my understanding of this being a threat if doesn't get his way is correct, and if so whether it is acceptable under the charter? greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 1, 2015, at 22:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Mathieu You are, of course, the Co-Chair and you will have to figure out how to interact with the Board. I hope, however, that you will not be reluctant to make the Board accountable. I can see the headline here in the US now “ICANN Accountability Board Not Even Willing To Ask Questions.” Frankly, I would write it myself ….. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:33 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting Dear Colleagues, During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work. The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following : a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1. c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against). We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt. Your comments and feedbacks are welcome. Best regards, and happy new year to all of you ! -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL For the Co-chairs mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8838 - Release Date: 12/30/14
Dear Phil and Paul We are in principle in agreement on the substance but having different approaches to achive the objectives . Pls read my last message to Paul some 15 mints ago Kavouss 2015-01-02 1:57 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Adding to Paul’s thoughts –
The US government funding bill for FY 2015 enacted and signed by the President at the end of the last Congress a few weeks ago prohibits NTIA from spending any funds on the IANA transition through September 30, 2014 and also requires NTIA to provide Congress with 45 days’ notice of any intent to transition the functions – that latter provision has no expiration date. These provisions were a compromise between a Republican House and Democratic Senate; both chambers will be under Republican control for the next two years so any future legislative language on this, should there be any, could be different.
Some have opined (and I believe Paul is in this camp, but I will let him speak for himself) believe that the just enacted language has a loophole that would not prevent the NTIA from simply letting the IANA contract expire. But that raises the question of what happens to control of the IANA functions if the current contract is not extended or transferred? Some think they could permanently fall into ICANN’s control if that were to happen. I disagree, believing that as the contracting party they revert to US control in the absence of a contract. But as a practical matter I do not expect NTIA to take such a route – not only would it be a very confrontational move that could have very adverse effects for the funding of other Department of Commerce operations, but it would be contrary to the stated intent of NTIA to only make the transfer under a transition plan developed by the multistakeholder community and accompanied by accountability enhancements.
As to Congressional oversight, my best guesstimate based on current information is that the Commerce and Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate will all hold one or more oversight hearings on the progress of and outlook for the transition plan, that the work of this CWG and the Accountability CCWG will be reviewed, and that the first of those hearings could occur as early as January.
Best to all,
Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Rosenzweig *Sent:* Thursday, January 01, 2015 6:24 PM *To:* 'Kavouss Arasteh'; 'Dr Eberhard W Lisse' *Cc:* 'Lisse Eberhard'; accountability-cross-community@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting
Dear Kavouss
I am not necessarily the best or only observer of US policy regarding ICANN. And as you know, our Congress has been in recess for the last several weeks for the holiday so right now very little is happening.
What I can advise is that, as has already been reported, the Congress passed a law late last year (which the President agreed to) that prohibited the NTIA from spending any money to make the ICANN transition happen. The text of the said that the funds approved by Conggress cannot be used by the NTIA to "relinquish [its] responsibility… with respect to Internet domain name system functions… and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA] functions." I take that, at a minimum, as a statement of caution from Congress.
The House of Representatives (our lower house) held two hearings regarding the transition early last year (links http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/4/hearing-should-the-dept-of-comme... and http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/ensuring-security-stability-resilien...) when the announcement was first made. And this editorial from the Washington Post ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-must-ensure-the-internet-has-good-...) reflects, I think the “general consensus” view in Washington (if there is such a thing).
Of course things change. Opinion will very much depend on what this group and ICANN wind up proposing. My best guess is that there will be further hearings on the matter this Spring in both the House of Representatives and in our upper chamber, the Senate and that, in those forums, the work of this group will be examined.
I hope that helps as well
Paul
***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:37 PM *To:* Dr Eberhard W Lisse *Cc:* <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Lisse Eberhard *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting
Dear Paul
What do you see in US NOW
May you please forward that to us .At least I do not have access to that information.
Kavouss
2015-01-01 23:19 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Dear co-chairs,
(through the co-chairs)
English is only my third language and I am not that familiar with reading between the lines of US new-speak, and hence need your assistance in determining wether my understanding of this being a threat if doesn't get his way is correct, and if so whether it is acceptable under the charter?
greetings, el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jan 1, 2015, at 22:38, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Mathieu
You are, of course, the Co-Chair and you will have to figure out how to interact with the Board. I hope, however, that you will not be reluctant to make the Board accountable. I can see the headline here in the US now “ICANN Accountability Board Not Even Willing To Ask Questions.” Frankly, I would write it myself …..
Paul
***NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ****
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
*From:* Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>] *Sent:* Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:33 AM *To:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting
Dear Colleagues,
During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work.
The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following :
a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1.
c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against).
We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt.
Your comments and feedbacks are welcome.
Best regards, and happy new year to all of you !
--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
For the Co-chairs
mathieu.weill@afnic.fr
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
_______________________________________________ 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: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4257/8838 - Release Date: 12/30/14
Dear Dr. Lisse It isn’t a threat at all. But this is a public process we are undertaking and it is actively being reviewed by the US Congress and outside groups here in the US, many of whom oppose any transition at all. I write frequently and publicly on the topic and I am often called on to provide my views outside of this forum. Early last year I testified before the US Congress on the matter in support of the transition provided adequate safeguards were in place. That’s one of the reasons I joined as a participant – so that I would be better informed in my commentary. So, if you are asking whether or not I will express the same views I have expressed inside this discussion on the outside to other forums in the United States (and elsewhere for that matter) the answer is of course I will. That’s my privilege. I am not in the least suggesting that I must get my way – but if the CCWG choses a particular path it can expect public comment on that path, whichever it takes. If it is one that I support I will say so loudly and passionately. If it is one that I think is misguided I will say that as well. Paul PS – As a side note, I of course, know that Bruce is the Board liaison. As a liaison he does not bind the Board. **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:20 PM To: Mathieu Weill; Thomas Rickert Cc: Lisse Eberhard; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting Dear co-chairs, (through the co-chairs) English is only my third language and I am not that familiar with reading between the lines of US new-speak, and hence need your assistance in determining wether my understanding of this being a threat if doesn't get his way is correct, and if so whether it is acceptable under the charter? greetings, el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini On Jan 1, 2015, at 22:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Mathieu You are, of course, the Co-Chair and you will have to figure out how to interact with the Board. I hope, however, that you will not be reluctant to make the Board accountable. I can see the headline here in the US now “ICANN Accountability Board Not Even Willing To Ask Questions.” Frankly, I would write it myself ….. Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 5:33 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Expected outcome of Frankfurt F2F meeting Dear Colleagues, During our call #4 we had an exchange of views regarding the expected outcome of our upcoming F2F meeting in Frankfurt. We agreed that we would initiate a discussion on the list on the proposals that we shared before finalizing at our next meeting. Clarity about expected outcomes is necessary before we get deeper into the preparation of this important step in our work. The current expected outcomes we submit for your review and comments are the following : a. Finalize agreement on scope of the group & definition, such as the purpose of accountability (as discussed, a strawman proposal is being drafted and will be circulated shortly) b. Agree on WS1 vs WS2 classification criteria + priorities. This should enable to provide clarity about expected outcome of WS1. c. Conclude inventory work from work areas, and as such, the assessment of Icann's current situation with regards to accountability. (please note this should include a list of the main contingencies we would "stress test" our proposals against). We are aware this is rather ambitious but hopeful this can be achieved thanks to the quality of the prep work from work areas as well as good preparation in the timeframe leading to Frankfurt. Your comments and feedbacks are welcome. Best regards, and happy new year to all of you ! -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL For the Co-chairs mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Twitter : @mathieuweill ***************************** _______________________________________________ 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
participants (5)
-
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin