The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a separate but related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA's role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN's policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process.
ok... I would make a slight modification on: filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA’s to: filling the gap created by the end of the NTIA’s On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a separate but related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA’s role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN’s policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process.
_______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Just for the record my own suggestion was along the lines of: “determining arrangements which will be be sufficient and necessary for the continuance of IANA functions, after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract” these could include arrangements for accountability, but there are other aspects which are practical, logistical, contractual etc which I think are certainly part of the scope. My concern with focus on accountability gaps is both because I think it is too narrow and also because if that is indeed the focus, there will be confusion about the respective roles of these two parallel exercises. Paul. On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:56 pm, Milton L Mueller <Mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a separate but related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA’s role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN’s policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
Demi and Paul (and I) seem to be in line.... as Some others appear to be ... On Thu Jul 17 15:01:26 2014, Paul Wilson wrote:
Just for the record my own suggestion was along the lines of:
“determining arrangements which will be be sufficient and necessary for the continuance of IANA functions, after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract”
these could include arrangements for accountability, but there are other aspects which are practical, logistical, contractual etc which I think are certainly part of the scope.
My concern with focus on accountability gaps is both because I think it is too narrow and also because if that is indeed the focus, there will be confusion about the respective roles of these two parallel exercises.
Paul.
On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:56 pm, Milton L Mueller <Mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a separate but related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group’s scope is limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA’s role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN’s policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process. _______________________________________________ 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
I do think we need to call out accountability as the main concern. We didn't need NTIA to perform the IANA functions, they were provided before the IANA contract existed (1998), we only "needed" it as a form of oversight over ICANN. And, as Joe noted, many people do confuse, and will continue to confuse, our process with that of ICANN's other accountability process. So, add "continuance of the IANA functions," sure, but make sure our scope is differentiated from the scope of the enhancing accountability process. -----Original Message----- From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:01 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] scope language Just for the record my own suggestion was along the lines of: "determining arrangements which will be be sufficient and necessary for the continuance of IANA functions, after the expiry of the NTIA-ICANN contract" these could include arrangements for accountability, but there are other aspects which are practical, logistical, contractual etc which I think are certainly part of the scope. My concern with focus on accountability gaps is both because I think it is too narrow and also because if that is indeed the focus, there will be confusion about the respective roles of these two parallel exercises. Paul. On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:56 pm, Milton L Mueller <Mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a separate but related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is central to both processes, this group's scope is limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA's role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN's policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process. _______________________________________________ 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
I support the language circulated by Milton. I'm also supportive of Paul's suggestion that we not limit it to accountability alone. I made two suggested edits in blue below: From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 8:57 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] scope language 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 limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA's role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN's policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process.
I would delete the following clause: whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN’s policy development process. Thanks. Jon On Jul 17, 2014, at 9:02 AM, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
I support the language circulated by Milton. I’m also supportive of Paul’s suggestion that we not limit it to accountability alone. I made two suggested edits in blue below:
From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 8:57 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] scope language
The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside aparallel 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 limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA’s role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN’s policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
I also support this but have some reservartions to the strict obligation imposed: “...the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process” which could lead to an open-end discussion. Can we add: “...the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process as available”? Wolf-Ulrich From: Drazek, Keith Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:02 PM To: Milton L Mueller ; internal-cg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] scope language I support the language circulated by Milton. I’m also supportive of Paul’s suggestion that we not limit it to accountability alone. I made two suggested edits in blue below: From: internal-cg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:internal-cg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 8:57 AM To: internal-cg@icann.org Subject: [Internal-cg] scope language 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 limited to filling the accountability gaps created by the end of the NTIA’s role as principal in the IANA contract, whereas the other process focuses on enhancing the accountability of ICANN’s policy development process. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and the ICG must assess proposed solutions in the light of the of the other accountability process. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg
participants (7)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
demi getschko -
Drazek, Keith -
Jon Nevett -
Milton L Mueller -
Paul Wilson -
WUKnoben