I was about to hit 'send' to circulate the draft charter to my council. But seeing these comments, and being in agreement with them, I have taken the liberty of replacing our paragraph under 'Relationship to ICANN Accountability Review Process' with the words used by the ICG. I have attached both a 'track changes' version and a 'clean' version. But now I must really send this out to my council. Byron -----Original Message----- From: cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-dt-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hammer Sent: August-14-14 10:31 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: cwg-dt-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter Hi Avri, Thanks for the feedback and sorry to hear you've been getting a hard time. Re Milton's comments about our wording, I agree that the ICG Charter is essentially saying the same thing that we are, but probably more eloquently. If there is strong feeling about our language, I would not object to using the same (probably better language) as the ICG in our CWG charter. Cheers, Julie On 14 Aug 2014, at 11:54 pm, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: On 13-Aug-14 10:46, Allan MacGillivray wrote:
Milton Mueller has even characterized it as being 'impressive' <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it.
Perhaps, but he is slamming me for it now. Indicating that we missed a chance to link the CWG to the Transparency work.
I am wondering why this statement on accountability seems to assume that there is "no linkage" between ICANN accountability and IANA accountability, when, in fact, there is.
"Any linkages between the work of the CWG on the IANA transition and the broader ICANN Accountability Review Process with regard to ICANN policy are outside the scope of this group's work. Accountability for the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of this working group."
The ICG charter handled this relationship in a much better way:
" The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work."
I have argued:
I think they both say a similar thing.
- the greater ICANN accountability is seperate - accountability related to IANA is in scope
and
On 13-Aug-14 17:32, Dan Krimm wrote:
So, if one accepts as true the notion that each jurisdiction's results will affect the other jurisdiction significantly, then even if the specific working groups have narrow scope of authority and jurisdiction, they still ought to be talking to each other along the way, perhaps cross-pollinating each other with ideas and monitoring each others' progress.
I do. I think that making IANA accountability part of the CWG's work it accepts the challenge of coordinating them. And maybe even going further than passive coordination.
Another point, is that IANA accountability is what counts in this case, and while unlikely that some entity other than ICANN will end up ultimately responsible for IANA, the accountability requirements for that function stand separate and should apply to whatever entity ends up responsible, next year or in 10 years. As such this group could come up with requirements that do not immediately fall inside whatever it is we end up doing about ICANN accountability - remember the note we just sent about the ICANN accountability processes seeming rigged.
This is a good topic for discussion, and should be brought up in the GNSO council discussions by our council members (myself included) if we continue to find it problematic.
and repsonse from Milton
The statement of the ICG is even stronger than Dan suggests. We said:
"the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work."
This is not just "talking to each other" and "cross pollinating, it suggests that they are interdependent and thus should coordinate. An extreme example of such interdependency and coordination would be to not complete the transition until certain commitments are made on the broader accountability process. I am afraid the CWG charter sets up the false notion that the two things are completely detached and separate processes, which is exactly what ICANN wants and exactly what advocates of accountability don't want.
I don't understand why Avri is not seeing this and offering apologias for the oversight in the CWG charter.
cheers, avri _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-DT-Stewardship mailing list CWG-DT-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dt-stewardship