No doubt, this liaison shall be extremely helpful for both sides, the ICG and the related Cross Community Group, as it may impact the ICG timeline at least. Full support. Wolf-Ulrich From: Martin Boyle Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 9:46 AM To: joseph alhadeff ; Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability Sorry to come late to this thread (mobile & vpn lock-out). I would be really concerned if the ICG did not have a liaison / exchange with the ICANN accountability discussion. In the current proposal “ ICANN suggests that a mechanism to liaise with work of the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) be established for Work Stream 1 of the Enhancing ICANN Accountability process, as the output of this is interconnected and part of the deliverable for the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal to NTIA.” Meanwhile, our RfP asks the communities to look at their existing and proposed accountability associated with their piece of the IANA. This will need to be built in to the ICANN accountability discussion, too. So I think that, while we shouldn’t be putting in a lot of effort to shape this discussion, we should be asking for a liaison, so that we do see the development of coherence between the crossover part between IANA transition and ICANN accountability. Best Martin From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: 15 October 2014 08:47 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability Daniel: I think we mostly agree, but let me highlight the where I think the intersection might be. Today the operational communities have internal processes which include reviews, audits etc as part of their internal processes, but those operational accountability mechanisms exist within an overall ecosystem in which the NTIA plays an oversight role, albeit light touch. We are going into a process where there will be changes proposed to operational community processes which may include accountability mechanisms. At the same time, the overall ecosystem will also be impacted by possibly expanded roles of ICANN or other multistakeholder NTIA substitute organization and how they deal with accountability. I agree that we need to focus on our narrower issues, but if the changes in broader accountability, due to the exit of NTIA, impact how operational accountability processes may work within or across communities then we need to pay attention to those changes and coordinate as needed. As we are not the creators of substantive positions, we would need to be in communication with the operational communities and other stakeholders in relation to their concerns should there be negative implications related to links between operational accountability and broader accountability processes. This issue would hopefully be a remote possibility and will be determined by how the variables play out... Joe On 10/15/2014 10:57 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: Joe, My intention is not to be 'hard' or confrontational. Neither do i suggest that we should project that attitude. I am just concerned that we stay focussed on our particular deliverable and project that image. The only way i personally see a definite need for us to coordinate with any icann accountability process would be if the operational communities choose to reference it in their proposals while it has not yet produced a final result. I literally see no other reason for coordination. If that does not happen there is no way how these processes would influence any language or semanics in our deliverable. That does not mean we should close our eyes. But it does mean we should stay focussed on *our* work and expand our energy on working proactively with the operational communities and not waste it on coordination that we need much much less. I am willing to reconsider my advice/position one the basis of concrete ways any coordination would influence the content of our deliverable. Daniel Hoping i can make at least par of Friday's meeting remotely. --- Sent from a handheld device. On 15.10.2014, at 15:01, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote: Daniel: I would take a slightly softer tone than yours, as we do not wish to suggest that the ICANN accountability work has no relevance to ours. We will need to coordinate with that group as part of our work. We need to be very clear, however, that we are not driving that work and do not control its agendas or timelines and therefore are not in position to address it in any substantive way. Joe On 10/15/2014 1:10 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: i understand the dynamics of 'icann week'. i also sense the desire of the crowd to link everything and anything as well as a good number of competing "complications departments" at work. my advice is to resist that very pressure and to project that icg is very focused on our deliverable and its particular content related to accountability. we are not here to discuss icann accountability or to create a web of additional linkages that complicate our specific work. if ntia wants to base their decision to withdraw on other input besides our deliverable, that should not be our concern. we should be focused on our specific work. ultimately we will be judged by the quality of that one document and we should put our energy into working with the operational communities to produce that one document and with everyone else to explain that one document and to make sure there are no show-stopping concerns about that one document. this is the approach i advise and the one i advise to project. again, € 0.02 Daniel ---------- Sent from a hand held device. On 14.10.2014, at 20:56, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: Agreed. The only thing I would say is that people are very interested in #3 and #4. I got questions about them both in meetings and in the hallway yesterday. So I don't think we can avoid talking about them altogether, even if we haven't fully sorted out how we will handle them. Alissa On Oct 14, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote: alissa, please stress point 2 above all else and add a good dose of lynn's first para about focus. we should project that we are focussed on our specific deliverable above anything else. in a "one of a dozen statements" situation it pays to leave all non-essentials off. if people ask about them, you get more airtime to answer those in a susequent round. it is most important to get a clear message out and not obscure it in any way. to my ears your points after 2 have a strong subtext suggesting that we might become creative. something we have agreed to avoid. so far my €0.02 daniel ---------- Sent from a hand held device. On 14.10.2014, at 16:50, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: I have been invited to participate in the Thursday community session about enhancing ICANN accountability <http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-enhancing-accountability>. There is a large panel of speakers and I will have a 5-minute slot. I have been asked to talk about how the ICG plans to link to the parallel accountability process and what discussions have taken place about this so far. Obviously we have been discussing this a bit amongst ourselves in the context of the proposal finalization process and the FAQ, both of which are on our agenda for further discussion on Friday. We also have a slot on Friday to discuss how we will liaise with the accountability CCWG. While the results of these discussions are TBD, I think there are a few points I can make, slightly expanding on what is in the FAQ: 1. Our charter recognizes that maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to the transition process. 2. The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and accountability — writ large, i.e., "all the ways in which oversight is conducted over the IANA functions operator’s provision of the services and activities” — in their proposals. 3. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an analysis and assessment of their implications for ICANN accountability. We are still discussing what this analysis and assessment will entail, and this will depend somewhat on the extent to which ICANN accountability is the focus of one or more community proposals. 4. We will be having further discussion on Friday to determine how we will procedurally liaise with the accountability CCWG, including how and when we might communicate the analysis/assessment described in (3). Thoughts? Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________Internal-cg mailing listInternal-cg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg