Thursday session on accountability
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
Thanks Alissa, looks good to me. Keith Drazek Sent from my iPhone On Oct 14, 2014, at 7:51 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto: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<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Me too. Thanks. Jon
On Oct 14, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Alissa, looks good to me.
Keith Drazek
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 14, 2014, at 7:51 AM, "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 list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Ok for me too. Joe On 10/14/2014 11:15 AM, Jon Nevett wrote:
Me too. Thanks.
Jon
On Oct 14, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote:
Thanks Alissa, looks good to me.
Keith Drazek
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 14, 2014, at 7:51 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto: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 <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto: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
Alissa, For me it is not only ok. I think it is important that you be there. Regarding the issues below, I think those are ok as well. Patrik On 14 okt 2014, at 08:17, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
Ok for me too.
Joe On 10/14/2014 11:15 AM, Jon Nevett wrote:
Me too. Thanks.
Jon
On Oct 14, 2014, at 8:12 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Alissa, looks good to me.
Keith Drazek
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 14, 2014, at 7:51 AM, "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 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Alissa, also think it is important you are there, and agree with the points below. You could also reiterate some of the points that have been made re the importance of keeping focus on the accountability items that directly affect the transition and no more. I would also like us to think about reiterating that while Sept. is an aggressive goal it IS within our collective reach. Yesterday there were some remarks which might be interpreted as September is a nice goal, but taking more time is quite ok. IMHO, it is too early to concede that and too early to take pressure off. Best, Lynn On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:50 AM, 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
we must be aware that there are now linkages to the need for both processes reaching the finish line in September - accountability and transition... Most folks give us a better chance than accountability.... Sent from my iPad
On Oct 14, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Lynn St.Amour <Lynn@lstamour.org> wrote:
Hi Alissa,
also think it is important you are there, and agree with the points below. You could also reiterate some of the points that have been made re the importance of keeping focus on the accountability items that directly affect the transition and no more.
I would also like us to think about reiterating that while Sept. is an aggressive goal it IS within our collective reach. Yesterday there were some remarks which might be interpreted as September is a nice goal, but taking more time is quite ok. IMHO, it is too early to concede that and too early to take pressure off.
Best, Lynn
On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:50 AM, 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 list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Alissa, Good that you will be there. I think your suggested answers are fine. Thank you for doing this. But since you are there… I’d probably use the opportunity to also use your personal experience by giving out some examples. You know the kinds of discussions we’re having on the IETF side about accountability, for instance. The basic tools that we plan to use, and some of the remaining issues that people are asking about. (Obviously they should be clearly labeled as your own experiences rather than ICG thoughts.) Jari
Indeed. Russ outlining to the ALAC yesterday the existing accountability, appeal redress etc mechanisms in place over the whole IETF processes was useful for that group. I suggest these are useful points to make. Narelle
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2014 4:14 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability
Alissa,
Good that you will be there. I think your suggested answers are fine. Thank you for doing this.
But since you are there... I'd probably use the opportunity to also use your personal experience by giving out some examples. You know the kinds of discussions we're having on the IETF side about accountability, for instance. The basic tools that we plan to use, and some of the remaining issues that people are asking about. (Obviously they should be clearly labeled as your own experiences rather than ICG thoughts.)
Jari
Alissa: I presume you will be drawing on the FAQ bit about the coordination with the ICANN accountability process That has just gotten a bit more complicated. There are now 3 distinct processes: 1) The names Cross community working group (CWG) on IANA, 2) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 1, and 3) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 2. If you need help understanding what any of those are and how the overlap from someone familiar with the names politics, just ask. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper 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
Alissa There is a little bit of confusion relating to two different entities both called " Cross Community Working Group" 1. One CCWG dealing with IANA stewardship transition under Names which ccNSO and GNSO are responsible 2 .Another CCWG dealing with accountability with two tracks 2.1 ICANN Accountability relating to IANA Transition 2.2. ICANN Accountability in general sense Moreover there would a need between Group 1 and Group referred to in 2.1 Please make it quite clear when tyou take the floor Regards Kavouss 2014-10-14 19:41 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Alissa:
I presume you will be drawing on the FAQ bit about the coordination with the ICANN accountability process
That has just gotten a bit more complicated. There are now 3 distinct processes: 1) The names Cross community working group (CWG) on IANA, 2) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 1, and 3) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 2. If you need help understanding what any of those are and how the overlap from someone familiar with the names politics, just ask.
--MM
*From:* internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alissa Cooper
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
Hi Kavouss,
On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Alissa There is a little bit of confusion relating to two different entities both called " Cross Community Working Group" 1. One CCWG dealing with IANA stewardship transition under Names which ccNSO and GNSO are responsible 2 .Another CCWG dealing with accountability with two tracks 2.1 ICANN Accountability relating to IANA Transition 2.2. ICANN Accountability in general sense Moreover there would a need between Group 1 and Group referred to in 2.1 Please make it quite clear when tyou take the floor
Yes, good point. I wonder if we all started using a simpler nomenclature if it would catch on? :-) E.g., NCWG (pronounced "en-swig") = #1 above ACWG-1 (pronounced "ay-swig-one") = #2.1 above ACWG-2 (pronounced "ay-swig-two") = #2.2 above In any event, this is what I think the current status of the ICG's collective understanding of our relationship to these other groups/tracks is: NCWG: NCWG is one of the operational communities from which we are expecting a transition proposal. There are a bunch of ICG members participating as participants or members in the NCWG and they are already keeping the ICG informed about what's going on in the NCWG. ACWG-1: The work of ACWG-1 will relate to the overall transition plan. In the ICG we are still discussing both the mechanism we will use to liaise with ACWG-1 and how we will analyze and assess the output of ACWG-1 vis a vis the output of NCWG and the other transition proposal components. ACWG-2: The work in ACWG-2 is outside of the ICG's scope. Thoughts? Alissa
Regards Kavouss
2014-10-14 19:41 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>:
Alissa:
I presume you will be drawing on the FAQ bit about the coordination with the ICANN accountability process
That has just gotten a bit more complicated. There are now 3 distinct processes: 1) The names Cross community working group (CWG) on IANA, 2) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 1, and 3) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 2. If you need help understanding what any of those are and how the overlap from someone familiar with the names politics, just ask.
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
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
Alissa, whilst I’m in agreement with your points to be made at the panel I strongly suggest not to impose new acronyms for use within the ICG rather than to rely on the existing ones which are used in the ICANN community. More confusion shall be programmed by doing this. For the accountability part there is still on single ICANN Accountability & Governance Cross Community Working Group with 2 workstreams. It may turn out in the near future that it shall be split into 2 groups. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 11:53 AM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability Hi Kavouss, On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Alissa There is a little bit of confusion relating to two different entities both called " Cross Community Working Group" 1. One CCWG dealing with IANA stewardship transition under Names which ccNSO and GNSO are responsible 2 .Another CCWG dealing with accountability with two tracks 2.1 ICANN Accountability relating to IANA Transition 2.2. ICANN Accountability in general sense Moreover there would a need between Group 1 and Group referred to in 2.1 Please make it quite clear when tyou take the floor Yes, good point. I wonder if we all started using a simpler nomenclature if it would catch on? :-) E.g., NCWG (pronounced "en-swig") = #1 above ACWG-1 (pronounced "ay-swig-one") = #2.1 above ACWG-2 (pronounced "ay-swig-two") = #2.2 above In any event, this is what I think the current status of the ICG's collective understanding of our relationship to these other groups/tracks is: NCWG: NCWG is one of the operational communities from which we are expecting a transition proposal. There are a bunch of ICG members participating as participants or members in the NCWG and they are already keeping the ICG informed about what's going on in the NCWG. ACWG-1: The work of ACWG-1 will relate to the overall transition plan. In the ICG we are still discussing both the mechanism we will use to liaise with ACWG-1 and how we will analyze and assess the output of ACWG-1 vis a vis the output of NCWG and the other transition proposal components. ACWG-2: The work in ACWG-2 is outside of the ICG's scope. Thoughts? Alissa Regards Kavouss 2014-10-14 19:41 GMT+02:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>: Alissa: I presume you will be drawing on the FAQ bit about the coordination with the ICANN accountability process That has just gotten a bit more complicated. There are now 3 distinct processes: 1) The names Cross community working group (CWG) on IANA, 2) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 1, and 3) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 2. If you need help understanding what any of those are and how the overlap from someone familiar with the names politics, just ask. --MM From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper 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 list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Hi Milton,
On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Alissa: I presume you will be drawing on the FAQ bit about the coordination with the ICANN accountability process
Yes, the words from the FAQ appear in #2 and #3 below.
That has just gotten a bit more complicated. There are now 3 distinct processes: 1) The names Cross community working group (CWG) on IANA, 2) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 1, and 3) the ICANN CWG on accountability track 2. If you need help understanding what any of those are and how the overlap from someone familiar with the names politics, just ask.
Understood. Will respond further in my response to Kavouss. Alissa
--MM
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
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
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
to be sure: leave it for other members of the panel to embarrass themselves by musing about the general accountability challenges. not our show! ---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 14.10.2014, at 20:06, 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
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
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
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, EUR 0.02
Daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 14.10.2014, at 20:56, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto: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 <mailto: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 EUR0.02
daniel
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 14.10.2014, at 16:50, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto: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 <mailto: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
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 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
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org <mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
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
Cat exiting bag! ;-) --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 15.10.2014, at 18:56, "WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
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 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
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Joe, Thanks for taking the time to explain. Indeed we mostly agree. In any case I agree that the operational communities should be cogniscant of the icann developments and icg too. And we need to watch out for 'negative implications' on our deliverable and its community acceptance. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.
On 15.10.2014, at 17:46, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com> wrote:
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 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
The term "coordination" may the issue here. The two work streams don't need to be coordinated per se, but a liaison mechanism will help identify any possible conflicts or concerns as the respective work streams operate in parallel. I expect the naming community's input to the ICG will have significant overlap with the ICANN accountability process, but to Daniel's point, that will need to be funneled through that bottom-up community process, not "coordinated" through another mechanism. I fully support a liaison mechanism between the two tracks. Hope that helps. On Oct 15, 2014, at 9:55 AM, "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net<mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>> wrote: Joe, Thanks for taking the time to explain. Indeed we mostly agree. In any case I agree that the operational communities should be cogniscant of the icann developments and icg too. And we need to watch out for 'negative implications' on our deliverable and its community acceptance. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device. On 15.10.2014, at 17:46, joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com<mailto:joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>> wrote: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Daniel, What you say is reasonable enough for someone not familiar with the political dynamics of the situation we are actually in. But we cannot ignore those other processes. We can produce a quality final proposal but it still has to be coordinated with the ICANN accountability process. Not only is that required by our charter, but concerns that ICANN is not accountable enough could prevent the transition from being completed regardless of the quality of our proposal. So as a matter of fact, we cannot be solely concerned with the quality of our one document, we have to understand what track 1 of the ICANN accountability CWG is proposing and how it meshes with our proposal. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Internal-cg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
@Milton +1. In the At-Large community, it is widely felt that ignoring the link (mentioned by Milton) would cast doubt on the transition itself. As others on this thread have already said, there is a necessary separation, but that does not mean mutual exclusion. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mercredi 15 Octobre 2014 12:17:40 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability Daniel, What you say is reasonable enough for someone not familiar with the political dynamics of the situation we are actually in. But we cannot ignore those other processes. We can produce a quality final proposal but it still has to be coordinated with the ICANN accountability process. Not only is that required by our charter, but concerns that ICANN is not accountable enough could prevent the transition from being completed regardless of the quality of our proposal. So as a matter of fact, we cannot be solely concerned with the quality of our one document, we have to understand what track 1 of the ICANN accountability CWG is proposing and how it meshes with our proposal. From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg 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 list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
milton, jean-jaques, my point is that the link between the icann accountability and our deliverable that could cast doubt about the process is outside our charter and scope. ---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 15.10.2014, at 22:59, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
@Milton +1.
In the At-Large community, it is widely felt that ignoring the link (mentioned by Milton) would cast doubt on the transition itself. As others on this thread have already said, there is a necessary separation, but that does not mean mutual exclusion.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mercredi 15 Octobre 2014 12:17:40 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability
Daniel,
What you say is reasonable enough for someone not familiar with the political dynamics of the situation we are actually in. But we cannot ignore those other processes. We can produce a quality final proposal but it still has to be coordinated with the ICANN accountability process. Not only is that required by our charter, but concerns that ICANN is not accountable enough could prevent the transition from being completed regardless of the quality of our proposal. So as a matter of fact, we cannot be solely concerned with the quality of our one document, we have to understand what track 1 of the ICANN accountability CWG is proposing and how it meshes with our proposal.
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
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 list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
It's not outside our charter. Read it: 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.
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:05 PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: Milton L Mueller; ICG; Alissa Cooper Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability
milton, jean-jaques,
my point is that the link between the icann accountability and our deliverable that could cast doubt about the process is outside our charter and scope.
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 15.10.2014, at 22:59, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
@Milton +1.
In the At-Large community, it is widely felt that ignoring the link (mentioned by Milton) would cast doubt on the transition itself. As others on this thread have already said, there is a necessary separation, but that does not mean mutual exclusion.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mercredi 15 Octobre 2014 12:17:40 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability
Daniel,
What you say is reasonable enough for someone not familiar with the political dynamics of the situation we are actually in. But we cannot ignore those other processes. We can produce a quality final proposal but it still has to be coordinated with the ICANN accountability process. Not only is that required by our charter, but concerns that ICANN is not accountable enough could prevent the transition from being completed regardless of the quality of our proposal. So as a matter of fact, we cannot be solely concerned with the quality of our one document, we have to understand what track 1 of the ICANN accountability CWG is proposing and how it meshes with our proposal.
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
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 list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Agreeing, it is essentially to the various groups that we don't duplicate or triplicate efforts due to not being aware which groups are working on which issues. And equally, we don't want to miss an issue that we assume is being dealt with elsewhere. We don't have the time to waste on different groups chasing the same shadows. Lets make sure the coordination is coordinated! Cheers Keith On 16/10/2014 10:38 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote:
It's not outside our charter. Read it:
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.
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:05 PM To: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Cc: Milton L Mueller; ICG; Alissa Cooper Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability
milton, jean-jaques,
my point is that the link between the icann accountability and our deliverable that could cast doubt about the process is outside our charter and scope.
---------- Sent from a hand held device.
On 15.10.2014, at 22:59, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
@Milton +1.
In the At-Large community, it is widely felt that ignoring the link (mentioned by Milton) would cast doubt on the transition itself. As others on this thread have already said, there is a necessary separation, but that does not mean mutual exclusion.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> À: "Daniel Karrenberg" <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net>, "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg@icann.org> Envoyé: Mercredi 15 Octobre 2014 12:17:40 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Thursday session on accountability
Daniel,
What you say is reasonable enough for someone not familiar with the political dynamics of the situation we are actually in. But we cannot ignore those other processes. We can produce a quality final proposal but it still has to be coordinated with the ICANN accountability process. Not only is that required by our charter, but concerns that ICANN is not accountable enough could prevent the transition from being completed regardless of the quality of our proposal. So as a matter of fact, we cannot be solely concerned with the quality of our one document, we have to understand what track 1 of the ICANN accountability CWG is proposing and how it meshes with our proposal.
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg
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 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
participants (15)
-
Alissa Cooper -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Drazek, Keith -
Jari Arkko -
Jon Nevett -
joseph alhadeff -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Keith Davidson -
Lynn St.Amour -
Martin Boyle -
Milton L Mueller -
Narelle Clark -
Patrik Fältström -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
WUKnoben