[Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals

[Narelle Clark]

Fair enough, then.


Narelle

From: Mohamed El Bashir [mailto:mbashir at mbash.net]
Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 2:49 PM
To: Drazek, Keith
Cc: Narelle Clark; ICG
Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals

+ Keith, we still need to issue our statement .
Kind Regards,
Mohamed

On 7 May 2015, at 07:21, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>> wrote:
Hi Narelle,

In my view, it does not obviate the need for our statement. If the message included references to the ICANN Board AND the ICANN staff, then perhaps. But it doesn't.

Regards,
Keith

On May 6, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Narelle Clark <narelle.clark at accan.org.au<mailto:narelle.clark at accan.org.au>> wrote:
Doesn’t this message obviate the need for any statement from us?

Ie doesn’t it answer the question that we’re posing about concerns ICANN has?


Narelle


From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:48 AM
To: ICG
Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals

FYI

Begin forwarded message:
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals
Hello All,


Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists:



"ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed  agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime  contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity."

The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability.    ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required  by the community.   An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system.

The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process.

The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing.   We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability







_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org

_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org<mailto:Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org>
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/attachments/20150507/047e0479/attachment.html>