Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ - Question 18, accountability
There are quite a few unresolved issues on question 18 regarding accountability. Also, in her comments on Question 12 Narelle seems to imply that the FAQ should not be saying anything at all about accountability, which I think is wrong. Let's go back to the relevant charter section. Here it is in full: "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." This clearly means that we must: a) pay attention to whether the new arrangements proposed by the OCs provide sufficient accountability after the NTIA goes away - accountability is "central" to the process. b) coordinate with the other accountability process. c) recognize and somehow deal with the interdependence of the two processes. They are interdependent because _regardless of what the OC's propose_ many constituencies don't want the US to let go of IANA until they think ICANN as a whole has made sufficient reforms regarding accountability. Furthermore, Wolf-Ulrich has raised an important issue, namely that the ICANN enhanced accountability process almost certainly will take longer than our transition process needs to take. So how do we coordinate with a process that is probably on a more extended time frame than ours? On the other hand, people involved in the other process will likely oppose going forward with the transition unless they are satisfied that ICANN has either executed or is completely committed to sufficient reforms related to accountability. Worse, you all need to understand is that our final proposal will not just go to the NTIA, it will become meat for US Congressional committees to pick over, and that Congressional scrutiny will be more concerned ICANN accountability than with the IANA transition per se. Or, to put it differently, if the accountability elements of our final proposal are not deemed strong enough to let ICANN off the hook, and if the other ICANN accountability process is not finished yet, we can expect strong opposition to execution of our approved transition plan. Because of its role, the ICG will be right in the middle of the two processes, and this will probably prove to be one of the most difficult aspects of our task. We will need to discuss this a lot more in LA. With that in mind here is a proposed redraft of Q18 ---- 18. What is the relationship between the work of the ICG and the process concerning ICANN accountability? The ICG charter says that accountability is "central" to our process. The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an analysis and assessment of their implications for ICANN accountability. At that point it will liaise with the ICANN accountability process and advise it on how the results of our process affects their requirements. ----- I think this modification addresses Russ's objections and Wolf-Ulrich's warning. It does not second-guess the OC results and it does not lock our results to the completion of the other accountability process, though it does try to coordinate them.
Thanks Milton .. This is very helpful .. Dear All .. Since the deadline is tomorrow, allow me to attach another iteration reflecting comments received so far, mainly by Milton (and hence the file name) .. I have also added it to Dropbox .. Please note that by deleting Q#7 (hope this is ok Elise) numbers of questions 8 onwards are now changed .. Russ and Wolf-Ulrich, please indicate whether Milton's new helpful draft addresses your points .. Kind regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 1:00 AM To: Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: RE: FAQ - Question 18, accountability There are quite a few unresolved issues on question 18 regarding accountability. Also, in her comments on Question 12 Narelle seems to imply that the FAQ should not be saying anything at all about accountability, which I think is wrong. Let's go back to the relevant charter section. Here it is in full: "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." This clearly means that we must: a) pay attention to whether the new arrangements proposed by the OCs provide sufficient accountability after the NTIA goes away - accountability is "central" to the process. b) coordinate with the other accountability process. c) recognize and somehow deal with the interdependence of the two processes. They are interdependent because _regardless of what the OC's propose_ many constituencies don't want the US to let go of IANA until they think ICANN as a whole has made sufficient reforms regarding accountability. Furthermore, Wolf-Ulrich has raised an important issue, namely that the ICANN enhanced accountability process almost certainly will take longer than our transition process needs to take. So how do we coordinate with a process that is probably on a more extended time frame than ours? On the other hand, people involved in the other process will likely oppose going forward with the transition unless they are satisfied that ICANN has either executed or is completely committed to sufficient reforms related to accountability. Worse, you all need to understand is that our final proposal will not just go to the NTIA, it will become meat for US Congressional committees to pick over, and that Congressional scrutiny will be more concerned ICANN accountability than with the IANA transition per se. Or, to put it differently, if the accountability elements of our final proposal are not deemed strong enough to let ICANN off the hook, and if the other ICANN accountability process is not finished yet, we can expect strong opposition to execution of our approved transition plan. Because of its role, the ICG will be right in the middle of the two processes, and this will probably prove to be one of the most difficult aspects of our task. We will need to discuss this a lot more in LA. With that in mind here is a proposed redraft of Q18 ---- 18. What is the relationship between the work of the ICG and the process concerning ICANN accountability? The ICG charter says that accountability is "central" to our process. The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an analysis and assessment of their implications for ICANN accountability. At that point it will liaise with the ICANN accountability process and advise it on how the results of our process affects their requirements. ----- I think this modification addresses Russ's objections and Wolf-Ulrich's warning. It does not second-guess the OC results and it does not lock our results to the completion of the other accountability process, though it does try to coordinate them.
Thanks Milton, I fully agree to your analysis and recommendation. I think the ICG - together with the community - should explore potential ways to isolate accountability parameters related and important to the IANA stewardship transition. This could be a first step for ICANN commitments to reforms and maybe seen as sufficient in the transition context. There may be a conditional relationship to the second step to fulfill the accountability demands with complete reforms but not a conditio sine qua non to execute the IANA stewardship transition. I think your redraft of Q18 leaves space enough for discussion. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 4:00 PM To: Manal Ismail ; Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] FAQ - Question 18, accountability There are quite a few unresolved issues on question 18 regarding accountability. Also, in her comments on Question 12 Narelle seems to imply that the FAQ should not be saying anything at all about accountability, which I think is wrong. Let's go back to the relevant charter section. Here it is in full: "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." This clearly means that we must: a) pay attention to whether the new arrangements proposed by the OCs provide sufficient accountability after the NTIA goes away - accountability is "central" to the process. b) coordinate with the other accountability process. c) recognize and somehow deal with the interdependence of the two processes. They are interdependent because _regardless of what the OC's propose_ many constituencies don't want the US to let go of IANA until they think ICANN as a whole has made sufficient reforms regarding accountability. Furthermore, Wolf-Ulrich has raised an important issue, namely that the ICANN enhanced accountability process almost certainly will take longer than our transition process needs to take. So how do we coordinate with a process that is probably on a more extended time frame than ours? On the other hand, people involved in the other process will likely oppose going forward with the transition unless they are satisfied that ICANN has either executed or is completely committed to sufficient reforms related to accountability. Worse, you all need to understand is that our final proposal will not just go to the NTIA, it will become meat for US Congressional committees to pick over, and that Congressional scrutiny will be more concerned ICANN accountability than with the IANA transition per se. Or, to put it differently, if the accountability elements of our final proposal are not deemed strong enough to let ICANN off the hook, and if the other ICANN accountability process is not finished yet, we can expect strong opposition to execution of our approved transition plan. Because of its role, the ICG will be right in the middle of the two processes, and this will probably prove to be one of the most difficult aspects of our task. We will need to discuss this a lot more in LA. With that in mind here is a proposed redraft of Q18 ---- 18. What is the relationship between the work of the ICG and the process concerning ICANN accountability? The ICG charter says that accountability is "central" to our process. The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an analysis and assessment of their implications for ICANN accountability. At that point it will liaise with the ICANN accountability process and advise it on how the results of our process affects their requirements. ----- I think this modification addresses Russ's objections and Wolf-Ulrich's warning. It does not second-guess the OC results and it does not lock our results to the completion of the other accountability process, though it does try to coordinate them. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2014 10:00 AM There are quite a few unresolved issues on question 18 regarding accountability. Also, in her comments on Question 12 Narelle seems to imply that the FAQ should not be saying anything at all about accountability, which I think is wrong.
I did have a piece of wording there in v2. I will have to review v3 to see if a bit went astray, or evolved in unintended ways.
Let's go back to the relevant charter section. Here it is in full:
"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."
This clearly means that we must: a) pay attention to whether the new arrangements proposed by the OCs provide sufficient accountability after the NTIA goes away - accountability is "central" to the process.
This is consistent with what I had included.
b) coordinate with the other accountability process. c) recognize and somehow deal with the interdependence of the two processes. They are interdependent because _regardless of what the OC's propose_ many constituencies don't want the US to let go of IANA until they think ICANN as a whole has made sufficient reforms regarding accountability.
Etc deleted, will review and hopefully others also. Narelle
Dear Narelle .. Just to help you track your edits, the most recent file 'ICG-FAQ-v3-MM' is basically comprised of: all the edits you shared in 'ICG-FAQ-v2-NLC' (I've accepted all changes) + comments shared by Milton over email + some manually deleted comments which I felt were already addressed .. Kind Regards --Manal PS: Question on coordination with accountability process is now Q#17 -----Original Message----- From: Narelle Clark [mailto:narelle.clark@accan.org.au] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:11 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Manal Ismail; Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: RE: FAQ - Question 18, accountability
-----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, 7 October 2014 10:00 AM There are quite a few unresolved issues on question 18 regarding accountability. Also, in her comments on Question 12 Narelle seems to imply that the FAQ should not be saying anything at all about accountability, which I think is wrong.
I did have a piece of wording there in v2. I will have to review v3 to see if a bit went astray, or evolved in unintended ways.
Let's go back to the relevant charter section. Here it is in full:
"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."
This clearly means that we must: a) pay attention to whether the new arrangements proposed by the OCs provide sufficient accountability after the NTIA goes away - accountability is "central" to the process.
This is consistent with what I had included.
b) coordinate with the other accountability process. c) recognize and somehow deal with the interdependence of the two processes. They are interdependent because _regardless of what the OC's propose_ many constituencies don't want the US to let go of IANA until they think ICANN as a whole has made sufficient reforms regarding accountability.
Etc deleted, will review and hopefully others also. Narelle
Milton:
18. What is the relationship between the work of the ICG and the process concerning ICANN accountability?
The ICG charter says that accountability is "central" to our process. The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an analysis and assessment of their implications for ICANN accountability. At that point it will liaise with the ICANN accountability process and advise it on how the results of our process affects their requirements. -----
I think this modification addresses Russ's objections and Wolf-Ulrich's warning. It does not second-guess the OC results and it does not lock our results to the completion of the other accountability process, though it does try to coordinate them.
This is a big improvement. Thanks. I stil l worry a bit about the ICG conducting an analysis. If the names community has achieved consensus, the only question remaining for the ICG is to determine if there are gaps. The revised text allows the ICG to tackle this task, but it seems to allow much more as well. It does correctly limit the ICG response to problems to coordination with the names community. Russ
Russ: Does the implications for ICANN accountability run both ways: how our finding impact their requirements as well as how nay possible changes they propose might impact operational community processes? Joe On 10/7/2014 1:14 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Milton:
18. What is the relationship between the work of the ICG and the process concerning ICANN accountability?
The ICG charter says that accountability is "central" to our process. The ICG has asked the operational communities to consider oversight and accountability in their proposals. After receiving consensus proposals from the operational communities regarding IANA, the ICG will conduct an analysis and assessment of their implications for ICANN accountability. At that point it will liaise with the ICANN accountability process and advise it on how the results of our process affects their requirements. -----
I think this modification addresses Russ's objections and Wolf-Ulrich's warning. It does not second-guess the OC results and it does not lock our results to the completion of the other accountability process, though it does try to coordinate them. This is a big improvement. Thanks.
I stil l worry a bit about the ICG conducting an analysis. If the names community has achieved consensus, the only question remaining for the ICG is to determine if there are gaps. The revised text allows the ICG to tackle this task, but it seems to allow much more as well. It does correctly limit the ICG response to problems to coordination with the names community.
Russ
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
-----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley@vigilsec.com] I still worry a bit about the ICG conducting an analysis. If the names community has achieved consensus, the only question remaining for the ICG is to determine if there are gaps.
Disagree strongly. "Coordination" with the broader ICANN accountability process is required by the charter and we cannot coordinate if we do not analyze the accountability arrangements as a whole that are coming out of the OC proposals and liaise with them on its implications for their process. As noted in my previous message, if we don't do this we are risking the entire transition being derailed. Furthermore, we do have to assess accountability holistically, as each OC will develop plans independently. Just as we need to look for technical incompatibilities or oversights, we need to do that for accountability. It's not just the names community that has to worry about accountability, by the way. There are major issues with numbers, too.
participants (6)
-
joseph alhadeff -
Manal Ismail -
Milton L Mueller -
Narelle Clark -
Russ Housley -
WUKnoben