Fwd: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Board treatment of the output of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
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. Greg *Gregory S. Shatan **|* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab* *666 Third Avenue **|** New York, NY 10017-5621* *Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022 *Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428 *gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>* *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> * *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Date: Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM Subject: [CCWG-Accountability] Regarding Board treatment of the output of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Cc: "Alissa Cooper (alcoop@cisco.com)" <alcoop@cisco.com> Hello Kavouss,
In addition to what I informed you before is that , Under WS 1 they already agreed to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Board Resolution adopted in LA I.E. ALLOWING THE BOARD TO VETO the content of the accountability whereas in case of ICG we have clearly mentioned that the Board should not modify the ICG work and send it as it was received to NTIA .However, should the Board has any comment, they may send it separately to NTIA In case of CWG and WS1 of CCWG, it is not the case.
From my understanding there are two separate but related activities.
The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) is developing a proposal to send to NTIA for the IANA transition. This proposal could incorporate the output of this Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. The ICANN Board's liaison on the ICG - Kuo Wei Wu - has conveyed to that group that the Board will send the report onto the NTIA without making any changes. The Board will send an accompanying letter which will either endorse the report, or it will express concerns that will already have been shared with the ICG through the various opportunities for public comment and dialogue. This Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability is developing recommendations for improvements of ICANN's accountability. These improvements can be made irrespective of whether the NTIA chooses to change its role with respect to the IANA function. The Board of ICANN is committed to making continuous improvements in its accountability mechanisms. The ICANN bylaws are clear on how the Board will approve policy recommendations from the supporting organisations (GNSO, ASO and ccNSO), but there is no explicit material in the bylaws for how the Board will process recommendations directly from a cross-community working group. The Board resolution passed in Los Angeles ( https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d) was intended to set clear expectations for how the recommendations would be treated. The assumption is that the Board will approve the recommendations from this group, and implement those recommendations. If the Board feels that it would not be in the public interest to implement a particular recommendation it has set out a process for working with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability to resolve the matter. The Board will not make any changes to a recommendation or report from this group. It is up to the CCWG to make or change any of its recommendations. 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. I hope that helps. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ICANN Board Liaison to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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. Cheers!
I hope that helps.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board Liaison to the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
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.*
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 15 Dec 2014 20:57, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
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 open i-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?
Going forward the entity of the status quo is changing and it's changing to an unpredictable/complicated setup. We have not had any reason to worry about the entity of current status quo because they are predictable. Also the current entity was wise enough to have always awarded to ICANN, why then is need to introduce an overreaching structure just to enable ability to move (something that may never be exercised). 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.)
As a member of the community, I will like to see a process existing within ICANN that ensures that the operation of IANA is done solely by community developed policy. On a lighter note, I think we should stop creating different definitions of multistakeholder community, i am only concerned about a community that is open, with a process that is inclusive and I think that can be achieved within ICANN. Thanks. Cheers!
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.
participants (3)
-
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Seun Ojedeji