Dear All .. Please find attached, and in Dropbox, a clean final version of the ICG FAQ .. We still need to insert the referenced email address before developing a PDF version .. I have also inserted a link to the most recent 'Proposal Finalization Process' file .. not sure how this will work with future versions .. I understand that the answer to Q17 on coordination with the accountability process is not 100% agreed by everyone but I believe the last draft provided by Milton was quite accepted to move forward and continue the discussion .. Thank you all for your help and cooperation to get this out before the LA meeting .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:00 AM To: Russ Housley Cc: Manal Ismail; ICG Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] FAQ - Question 18, accountability
-----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] I still worry a bit about the ICG conducting an analysis. If the names community has achieved consensus, the only question remaining for the ICG is to determine if there are gaps.
Disagree strongly. "Coordination" with the broader ICANN accountability process is required by the charter and we cannot coordinate if we do not analyze the accountability arrangements as a whole that are coming out of the OC proposals and liaise with them on its implications for their process. As noted in my previous message, if we don't do this we are risking the entire transition being derailed. Furthermore, we do have to assess accountability holistically, as each OC will develop plans independently. Just as we need to look for technical incompatibilities or oversights, we need to do that for accountability. It's not just the names community that has to worry about accountability, by the way. There are major issues with numbers, too.