Hi,
I think the point is that without the ability to ultimately pull the
contract, as the IETF can, for another provider, there can be no
accountability.
To rely on ICANN becoming other than what it is, an organization
controlled 100% by a Board that can change any of it rules anytime
it wishes, is probably far too optimistic, and certainly not
something can either be completed or guaranteed by the time we need
an IANA solution.
Insisting on iron clad ICANN accountability as a precursor to
transition seems a way to stop the transition from happening in
2015.
I happen to believe that ICANN should hold the contract for a
significant period of time before another RFP and that it will hold
it for a long time after an RFP, but I beleive that without the
promise of an RFP in the future, there is little to stop the
Board-Sr.Staff from spinning any accountability solution we come up
with into an empty box checking exercise. Both you and Olivier were
on the ATRT and I believe you have seen how slippery that whole
process could be without the anchor of an IANA contract that could
be lost.
I know some argue for the nuclear option of an RFP on demand in case
of malfeasance or other dereliction of duty. The problem with
'nuclear options,' is that they never get put into action except in
cases of real dismal disaster. I beleive a regualr RFP is a much
better tool for avoiding disaster as opposed to waiting for it to
it.
I also understand that there may be a concern in At-Large community
that nothing could ever be as open and inclusive as ICANN is now,
especially with regard to user concerns. I beleive the solution for
that is to make sure the process we transition to complies with
multistakeholder principles, i.e. bottom-up, open and inclusive
&c., and not to just accept that ICANN will continue becoming
ever more complaint with multistakeholder principles. In fact I
fear that without the periodic RFP for the IANA contract, ICANN's
commitment to the multistakeholder principles may weaken in the face
of other pressures.
avri
On 29-Nov-14 20:51, Alan Greenberg
wrote:
Milton, I do not know of ANY ALAC or At-Large
participants in the process who are opponents of strong ICANN
accountability.
Just because we do not agree with you that the ONLY way to achieve
strong accountability is to be able to pull the IANA contract does
not imply that we are against other forms of strong
accountability.
In fact, what we favour would not only ensure strong
accountability for IANA functions, but for other aspects of ICANN
as well - something that the proposal that you favour would not
do.
Please do not incorrectly characterize our position.
Alan
At 29/11/2014 01:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
If we roll back to square one, as some of the opponents of
strong accountability in ALAC wish to do, what exactly would the
CCWG be able to do in their track one deliberations? They would
indeed be working in a vacuum.
--MM
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship