Hi all, On 16 December 2014 at 08:34, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
All:
I thought that Bruce Tonkin's email a short while ago on the CWG-Accountability list would also be of interest to people on this list.
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.
If some real accountability can be implemented again i wonder why there will still be need for the current overreaching cwg proposal. I can only hope that we will fix this once and for all by introducing mechanisms within the organisation that keeps both the community and board accountable instead of creating new layer of politics which i will call multi-stakeholder in disguise.
Seun, can I take it from this that you basically do not accept there is any reason to maintain the status quo of an external contracting party for the IANA Functions? That is, in essence, you think ownership of these should pass through to ICANN? (The CWG proposal is that they remain owned by the multistakeholder community, of which ICANN is only a part.) thanks, Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*