Do we need an extra scenario given the requirements formulated by the CCWG-Accountability ?
All, I have read the CCWG-Accountability Chairs’ statement and wonder if we should not also discuss a scenario for the situation where the CCWG-Accountability will be successful in reaching their first requirement: “Enabling community empowerment over ICANN Board decisions with limited, strictly enumerated, last resort powers;" As far as I understand, these last resort powers are meant to include the powers with regard to the IANA functions. I figure that if the community will already have the final say over the IANA functions through these last resort powers, that: 1. There will be no need for an external solution where the same community will be given the final say over the IANA functions; 2. There is no need for an MRT; 3. There might be a need for a CSC (maybe a CSC plus); But maybe I am oversimplifying things here ? Best, Maarten
Maarten, I don't think you are over-simplifying, but then, that has been my position from the start. RFP3B is charged with presenting such a solution to the overall CWG, but so far we seem to be having a hard time really getting going. Alan At 26/01/2015 04:18 AM, Maarten Simon wrote:
All,
I have read the CCWG-Accountability Chairs' statement and wonder if we should not also discuss a scenario for the situation where the CCWG-Accountability will be successful in reaching their first requirement:
"Enabling community empowerment over ICANN Board decisions with limited, strictly enumerated, last resort powers;"
As far as I understand, these last resort powers are meant to include the powers with regard to the IANA functions. I figure that if the community will already have the final say over the IANA functions through these last resort powers, that:
1. There will be no need for an external solution where the same community will be given the final say over the IANA functions;
2. There is no need for an MRT;
3. There might be a need for a CSC (maybe a CSC plus);
But maybe I am oversimplifying things here ?
Best,
Maarten _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi all I don't think this works. The ICANN community is what would have the overarching responsibility here. That's not the same as the global multistakeholder community which is where the IANA functions are going, and it is not a legitimate proxy for it. The work of our accountability CCWG might help improve the IANA accountability situation, but shouldn't in my view replace your work to develop a robust distributed stewardship model for the IANA functions - something an internal-to-ICANN solution can never deliver. best, Jordan On 26 January 2015 at 22:18, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl> wrote:
All,
I have read the CCWG-Accountability Chairs' statement and wonder if we should not also discuss a scenario for the situation where the CCWG-Accountability will be successful in reaching their first requirement:
"*Enabling community empowerment over ICANN Board decisions with limited, strictly enumerated, last resort powers;"*
As far as I understand, these last resort powers are meant to include the powers with regard to the IANA functions. I figure that if the community will already have the final say over the IANA functions through these last resort powers, that:
1. There will be no need for an external solution where the same community will be given the final say over the IANA functions;
2. There is no need for an MRT;
3. There might be a need for a CSC (maybe a CSC plus);
But maybe I am oversimplifying things here ?
Best,
Maarten
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- 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.*
On 1/26/2015 8:37 PM, Jordan Carter wrote:
Hi all
I don't think this works. The ICANN community is what would have the overarching responsibility here. That's not the same as the global multistakeholder community which is where the IANA functions are going, and it is not a legitimate proxy for it.
The work of our accountability CCWG might help improve the IANA accountability situation, but shouldn't in my view replace your work to develop a robust distributed stewardship model for the IANA functions - something an internal-to-ICANN solution can never deliver.
Agree.
best, Jordan
On 26 January 2015 at 22:18, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl <mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>> wrote:
All,
I have read the CCWG-Accountability Chairs’ statement and wonder if we should not also discuss a scenario for the situation where the CCWG-Accountability will be successful in reaching their first requirement:
“/_*Enabling community empowerment over ICANN Board decisions with limited, strictly enumerated, last resort powers;"*_/
As far as I understand, these last resort powers are meant to include the powers with regard to the IANA functions. I figure that if the community will already have the final say over the IANA functions through these last resort powers, that:
1. There will be no need for an external solution where the same community will be given the final say over the IANA functions;
2. There is no need for an MRT;
3. There might be a need for a CSC (maybe a CSC plus);
But maybe I am oversimplifying things here ?
Best,
Maarten
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org <mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter
/To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential./
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Hi Jordan, If I understand it correct, you see a relevant difference between the ICANN community and the Global Stakeholder Community that should be represented in the MRT. Could you please explain who you think is missing bearing in mind that we are talking about the naming part of the IANA Function ? Is that only the ccTLD's that are not member of the ccNSO ? Best, Maarten Message sent from mobile device. Op 26 jan. 2015 om 21:38 heeft Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> het volgende geschreven: Hi all I don't think this works. The ICANN community is what would have the overarching responsibility here. That's not the same as the global multistakeholder community which is where the IANA functions are going, and it is not a legitimate proxy for it. The work of our accountability CCWG might help improve the IANA accountability situation, but shouldn't in my view replace your work to develop a robust distributed stewardship model for the IANA functions - something an internal-to-ICANN solution can never deliver. best, Jordan On 26 January 2015 at 22:18, Maarten Simon <maarten.simon@sidn.nl<mailto:maarten.simon@sidn.nl>> wrote: All, I have read the CCWG-Accountability Chairs’ statement and wonder if we should not also discuss a scenario for the situation where the CCWG-Accountability will be successful in reaching their first requirement: “Enabling community empowerment over ICANN Board decisions with limited, strictly enumerated, last resort powers;" As far as I understand, these last resort powers are meant to include the powers with regard to the IANA functions. I figure that if the community will already have the final say over the IANA functions through these last resort powers, that: 1. There will be no need for an external solution where the same community will be given the final say over the IANA functions; 2. There is no need for an MRT; 3. There might be a need for a CSC (maybe a CSC plus); But maybe I am oversimplifying things here ? Best, Maarten _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Jordan Carter -
Maarten Simon -
Matthew Shears