Hi, I think two issues are being confounded. One is the dependency that any solution for stewardship can't go forward until there is a response to ICANN accountability - this of course assumes the function stays with ICANN. The other is the aspects of the accountability aspects for IANA that are part of the CWG work and that need to hold even if ICANN did not retain the function for some reason. While these are naturally linked, they are also different. In terms of names, we need to have accountability no matter who has the contract, and we need to have ways to react if it isn't. This I think was discussed - at least it seemed as if it was while I was in remote attendance. While I was also not there but was on line for about 6 hours, I thought they were working on the shape of the solution including accountabilty issues for IANA. I did not know they discussed the first issue, which I thought was predetermined, that until there is an ICANN accountability solution, we cannot finalize the Stewardship transition. But I still have reading to catch up with. avri On 21-Nov-14 15:33, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Let me elaborate a little more now that I am on my laptop and not just my phone.

First of all, because I was also not in Frankfurt nor able to participate much remotely and have not yet had time to review the results of the F2F in detail, my initial thoughts need to be taken in that context.

But to the extent that the recommendations that came out of the F2F meeting do not reflect a strong requirement that the IANA Transition should not happen before broader independent ICANN Accountability mechanisms are assured, then I believe that they ignore one of the clear requirements that that the community in near unanimity stated in public comments and dialog. And I also think that the IANA Stewardship Transition CWG Charter allowed for connection of the two separate work efforts in that way.

That said, I will try to catch up in the next few days. And I believe that we have plenty of time now to correct this if in fact it is not reflected sufficiently in the F2F results.

Finally, regardless of the above, I want to thank and compliment all of those who worked very long and hard in the F2F meeting. You had a huge task in an extremely short timeframe and I am confident that you produced draft recommendations that the community can now review, comment and improve.

Chuck

Milton, Mathieu & Colleagues, Some thoughts in relation to this topic: First, having read Milton’s email below, I can’t see that I disagree with any of it and it’s unfortunate if my wording from the Frankfurt meeting does appear to do so or is taken to mean that I do. With regard to where I believe we are currently in the work of the IANA transition CWG, and recognising that this is still work in progress, I see the following critical accountability levers: 1. Operational accountability. This will be driven at the first level by the IANA Customer Steering Committee and, to the extent that this Committee does not achieve satisfactory outcomes, can be escalated to the (Multistakeholder) IANA Periodic Review Team. 2. Overall performance accountability. This will be monitored by the IANA Periodic Review Team, both periodically and on an ad-hoc basis (in response to escalation from the IANA Customer Steering Committee) and the ultimate sanction of this group is twofold: a. The ability to terminate the contract mid-term (to the extent that such contractual provisions are written into the contract) b. The ability to contract with a new provider at the term of the contract (consistent with the contract and with processes to be determined by the IANA Periodic Review Team). Notwithstanding the above substantial accountability levers, there is the issue highlighted from the Charter of the CWG by Milton i.e. as follows: “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.” Considering the above, I believe that the work of the IANA Stewardship CWG to date, is largely on track in relation to the following charter provision: “ … 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 … ” However, I believe we do need more work here: “Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.” And it is this second point which now needs to be picked up as a matter of urgency and I’d welcome any guidance on this. One factor in doing so is that the Accountability CWG has only very recently had its charter approved by the chartering organisations. Finally, please note the reference in the Chair’s Statement from the Frankfurt meeting to the IANA Stewardship Charter and drawing attention to the point of this email exchange as follows: The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions met for a face-to-face in Frankfurt, Germany on 19 – 20 November 2014. The highly diverse CWG is one of the three groups submitting a proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as part of the overall IANA Stewardship Transition <https://www.icann.org/stewardship> process. As noted in the CWG <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/CWG-DT%20Draft%20 Charter%20-%2014%20August%202014%20Updated.doc?api=v2> Charter, the IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. I look forward to further input, discussion and guidance in any event, and especially if my understanding outlined above is inconsistent with that of others. Thanks, Jonathan From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] Sent: 21 November 2014 09:15 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] scope and accountability Dear Milton, Dear colleagues, As one of the co-chairs of the drafting team for the accountability cross community working group, this message has obviously drawn my attention. Milton, you raise an issue about the inter-relation between the two tracks, but I must admit I have difficulties understanding both what triggered the discussion and what the actual consequences might be. This is of course because I have neither been in Frankfurt nor managed to read all the transcripts. Could anyone be kind enough to point me to the relevant parts of the transcript ? Best Mathieu Le 21/11/2014 00:15, Milton L Mueller a écrit : Jonathan I’ve been reading the transcripts of the Frankfurt meeting. Sorry I couldn’t be there to correct what I saw as an oversight or error in the discussion. Although others committed the same error, it was most concisely expressed in a quote from you, so that’s why I am picking on you ;-) You said: “Then there's the broader ICANN accountability issue, which I think is beyond the remit of this committee and into the next working group, except to the extent it deals with accountability for IANA functions.” This implies that IANA accountability and ICANN accountability are two completely separate things. The problem is that they are interrelated. This interdependency is explicitly recognized in the ICG’s charter: “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.” Of course the IANA transition process cannot fix all the accountability issues in ICANN’s policy making process, nor do we want it to. But “interrelated and interdependent” means that how we handle accountability in the IANA transition will have direct impact on the enhanced accountability process for the rest of ICANN. As a simple example, if the IANA transition merely hands over control of IANA to ICANN with no oversight or separability whatsoever, then the enhanced accountability CWG will have a _lot_ more urgent work to do, especially in track 1. On the other hand, if the IANA transition process allows the community to take IANA away from a misbehaving ICANN, or otherwise leverages the control of IANA to ensure that ICANN complies with certain good governance requirements, then the IANA transition has implications for ICANN accountability, not just IANA accountability. The clear intent of the ICG charter is to recognize that both ICANN and IANA accountability are related. The creation of two tracks in the ICANN accountability CWG - one that must be completed before the IANA transition is effectuated and the other involving reforms that can wait until after the transition - is another explicit recognition of the interdependency of the IANA and ICANN accountability. The simple fact is that the IANA transition process _must_ take into account the broader implications of its proposed changes for the overall accountability of ICANN. I hope the CWG Frankfurt meeting’s failure to recognize the interdependency this did not prevent it from making progress in other areas. Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/> _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- ***************************** Mathieu WEILL AFNIC - directeur général Tél: 01 39 30 83 06 mathieu.weill@afnic.fr ***************************** ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 ! Notre nouvelle adresse est : Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux

I understand that the chair's statement may not yet have been posted. I am in transit but will check ASAP. Jonathan On 21 Nov 2014 13:12, "Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

Milton, Mathieu & Colleagues,

Some thoughts in relation to this topic:

First, having read Milton’s email below, I can’t see that I disagree with any of it and it’s unfortunate if my wording from the Frankfurt meeting does appear to do so or is taken to mean that I do.

With regard to where I believe we are currently in the work of the IANA transition CWG, and recognising that this is still work in progress, I see the following critical accountability levers:

1. Operational accountability. This will be driven at the first level by the IANA Customer Steering Committee and, to the extent that this Committee does not achieve satisfactory outcomes, can be escalated to the (Multistakeholder) IANA Periodic Review Team.

2. Overall performance accountability. This will be monitored by the IANA Periodic Review Team, both periodically and on an ad-hoc basis (in response to escalation from the IANA Customer Steering Committee) and the ultimate sanction of this group is twofold:

a. The ability to terminate the contract mid-term (to the extent that such contractual provisions are written into the contract)

b. The ability to contract with a new provider at the term of the contract (consistent with the contract and with processes to be determined by the IANA Periodic Review Team).

Notwithstanding the above substantial accountability levers, there is the issue highlighted from the Charter of the CWG by Milton i.e. as follows:

“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.”

Considering the above, I believe that the work of the IANA Stewardship CWG to date, is largely on track in relation to the following charter provision:

“ … 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 … ”

However, I believe we do need more work here:

“Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work.”

And it is this second point which now needs to be picked up as a matter of urgency and I’d welcome any guidance on this. One factor in doing so is that the Accountability CWG has only very recently had its charter approved by the chartering organisations.

Finally, please note the reference in the Chair’s Statement from the Frankfurt meeting to the IANA Stewardship Charter and drawing attention to the point of this email exchange as follows:

The Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on Naming Related Functions met for a face-to-face in Frankfurt, Germany on 19 – 20 November 2014. The highly diverse CWG is one of the three groups submitting a proposal to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) as part of the overall IANA Stewardship Transition <https://www.icann.org/stewardship> process. As noted in the CWG Charter <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48347144/CWG-DT%20Draft%20C...>, the IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability.

I look forward to further input, discussion and guidance in any event, and especially if my understanding outlined above is inconsistent with that of others.

Thanks,

Jonathan

*From:* Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] *Sent:* 21 November 2014 09:15 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] scope and accountability

Dear Milton, Dear colleagues,

As one of the co-chairs of the drafting team for the accountability cross community working group, this message has obviously drawn my attention. Milton, you raise an issue about the inter-relation between the two tracks, but I must admit I have difficulties understanding both what triggered the discussion and what the actual consequences might be. This is of course because I have neither been in Frankfurt nor managed to read all the transcripts.

Could anyone be kind enough to point me to the relevant parts of the transcript ?

Best Mathieu

Le 21/11/2014 00:15, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

Jonathan

I’ve been reading the transcripts of the Frankfurt meeting. Sorry I couldn’t be there to correct what I saw as an oversight or error in the discussion. Although others committed the same error, it was most concisely expressed in a quote from you, so that’s why I am picking on you ;-) You said:

“Then there's the broader ICANN accountability issue, which I think is beyond the remit of this committee and into the next working group, except to the extent it deals with accountability for IANA functions.”

This implies that IANA accountability and ICANN accountability are two completely separate things. The problem is that they are interrelated. This interdependency is explicitly recognized in the ICG’s charter:

“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.”

Of course the IANA transition process cannot fix all the accountability issues in ICANN’s policy making process, nor do we want it to. But “interrelated and interdependent” means that how we handle accountability in the IANA transition will have direct impact on the enhanced accountability process for the rest of ICANN. As a simple example, if the IANA transition merely hands over control of IANA to ICANN with no oversight or separability whatsoever, then the enhanced accountability CWG will have a _*lot*_ more urgent work to do, especially in track 1. On the other hand, if the IANA transition process allows the community to take IANA away from a misbehaving ICANN, or otherwise leverages the control of IANA to ensure that ICANN complies with certain good governance requirements, then the IANA transition has implications for ICANN accountability, not just IANA accountability.

The clear intent of the ICG charter is to recognize that both ICANN and IANA accountability are related. The creation of two tracks in the ICANN accountability CWG - one that must be completed before the IANA transition is effectuated and the other involving reforms that can wait until after the transition - is another explicit recognition of the interdependency of the IANA and ICANN accountability. The simple fact is that the IANA transition process _*must*_ take into account the broader implications of its proposed changes for the overall accountability of ICANN.

I hope the CWG Frankfurt meeting’s failure to recognize the interdependency this did not prevent it from making progress in other areas.

Milton L Mueller

Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor

Syracuse University School of Information Studies

http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

Internet Governance Project

http://internetgovernance.org

_______________________________________________

CWG-Stewardship mailing list

CWG-Stewardship@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

--

*****************************

Mathieu WEILL

AFNIC - directeur général

Tél: 01 39 30 83 06

mathieu.weill@afnic.fr

*****************************

ATTENTION : L'Afnic a déménagé le 31 mars 2014 !

Notre nouvelle adresse est :

Afnic - Immeuble Le Stephenson - 1, rue Stephenson - 78180 Montigny-le-Bretonneux