[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?

Thu Jun 19 15:33:01 UTC 2014

Wolfgang:

I am not very familiar with all of the AoC process, but it seems that 
the corporate/organizational analog might best be to an Internally 
Chartered Audit group that may make the use of an external auditor...  
The NTIA role, whatever its rigor, seemed to have one more level of 
separation of duties analogous to that of an external accountability 
agent.  Would that be a relevant comparison?

Best-

Joe
On 6/19/2014 11:13 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Thanks Bertrand,
>
> this is very useful and helps indeed to frame the discussion.
>
> One of my ideas is to use the model of the AoC Review Teams (as ATRT2) for building of something which could be called a multistakeholder "oversight body" over the IANA functions. And if you agree that the AoC Review is part of the broader accountability issue than you coullld end up with a distributed and decentralized accountability mechanism build around issues, a "multilayered mechanism".
>
> MTC (My Two Cents)
>
> Wolfgang
>
>   
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: discuss-bounces at 1net.org im Auftrag von Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Gesendet: Do 19.06.2014 16:25
> An: Jordan Carter
> Cc: discuss at 1net.org
> Betreff: Re: [discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your	thoughts?
>   
> Dear Jordan,
>
> Thanks for the pertinent question and the good framing.
>
> *As a preliminary note, the thread you received in response is a clear
> explanation why this list is having problems: if people here cannot respect
> a minimum of netiquette and they veer off topic immediately as was the case
> here, this is extremely encouraging everyone to stay out ... including me
> at the moment. Better moderation is needed, or at least some peer pressure
> to encourage people to stay on topic.*
>
> Just a quick chime in nonetheless on the link between the two processes.
>
> In a nutshell, the discussion on the transition of NTIA's role has
> highlighted that there are two distinct dimensions:
>
>     - the day-to-day operational "pressing the button" to send updates for
>     implementation to Verisign, which is a function for which I think we can
>     relatively easily find a simple, practical solution (even if there are
>     various options)
>     - and the much more important and delicate question of NTIA's role in
>     attributing (and potentially rescinding!) the responsibility to handle the
>     IANA functions to a particular entity, within a set of detailed
>     specifications.
>
> This second issue is the one directly linked to the ICANN accountability
> track and raises at least three issues, roughly summarized here:
>
>     - who has ultimate authority to confer the responsibility to handle
>     these tasks to a particular entity (and thus to choose it)? There are
>     different views on this, including: the "customers" (I hate this term) of
>     the IANA functions, the whole community (of Internet users or even humanity
>     as a whole, as it is a global public interest function), governments
>     (supposed to represent their citizens), etc...
>     - how this mandate is concretely formalized if very different types of
>     actors need to express their endorsement? a mutual affirmation of
>     commitments, several "contracts" or MoUs, anything else...?
>     - under which conditions and through what procedure(s) if any, should
>     specific decisions be appealed, and more importantly the mandate
>     potentially be modified, suspended or reallocated?
>
> The above is an unrefined quick input, but it helps me at least to
> understand why the question of ICANN's accountability has relevance to the
> discussion on NTIA's role transition - and how they are articulated.
>
> That being said, this dimension of ICANN's accountability regarding the
> IANA functions should itself be distinguished from how ICANN is accountable
> in the other activities it conducts, including policy development,
> implementation by staff and Board decisions. There are of course
> connections too here, but the distinction is important if we do not want
> this discussion to basically end up opening everything about ICANN. And
> even for those who want to do that.
>
> De facto, the announcement by NTIA raises a chain of questions. However
> interconnected and far reaching they may be, it is important to agree first
> on the useful distinctions to structure discussions.
>
> I have always thought that a correct framing of issues is the indispensable
> prerequisite for addressing any of them in any meaningful manner. I hope
> the above is a useful - albeit rough - contribution in that regard and
> welcome suggestions to clarify and improve it. Provided they remain on
> topic, of course :-)
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "*Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes*", Antoine de
> Saint Exupéry
> ("*There is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans*")BERTRAND DE
> LA CHAPELLE Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Directoremail
> bdelachapelle at internetjurisdiction.net email bdelachapelle at gmail.com
> twitter @IJurisdiction <https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction> | @bdelachapelle
> <https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle> mobile +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
> www.internetjurisdiction.net [image: A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE
> PROCESS]
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> Is this list still active?
>>
>> How are people feeling in the lead up to ICANN London about the responses
>> of the organisation on the IANA transition process and the initial paper on
>> ICANN accountability?
>>
>> I think there have been some steps forward in terms of acknowledging
>> feedback and changing the process in response, but more to be done esp in
>> linking the two processes together, if I had to sum it up in a sentence.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>> bests,
>> Jordan
>>
>> --
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> Skype: jordancarter
>>
>> *To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.*
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss