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

Thu May 7 08:06:18 UTC 2015

Dear Manal,

thanks for your thoughtful remarks. I would just like to point out that:

- The Chair of a Board Committee at ICANN (BGC in this case) cannot speak on behalf of the bull Board, nor on behalf of Staff. And although the Chair of that Board Committee is a member of the CCWG-Accountability, that does not give him authority to express the views of the full ICANN Board, when interacting with an outside entity such as ICG.

- as I've already mentioned, the ICG is constituted as an independent body, not subordinated to ICANN. Because of this (important) feature, our formal interaction with ICANN (letters, emails) should be only from Chair to Chair. Allow me to mention an analogy: the Chair of the GAC formally interacts only with the Chair of the ICANN Board.

- I don't see any problem in repetition: if the full Board supports the position expressed by the Chair of one of its committees (BGC here), it will have no problem agreeing to the Board Chair replying to the ICG Chair, using the same terms.

Naturally, my remarks above do not in any constitute a criticism of any individual on the ICANN Board; I just think that proper process contributes to clarity and, ultimately, to accountability.

Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.

----- Mail original -----
De: "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
À: "Mohamed El Bashir" <mbashir at mbash.net>, "Keith Drazek" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Cc: "ICG" <internal-cg at ianacg.org>
Envoyé: Jeudi 7 Mai 2015 09:09:24
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] Further comment on	concerns	that	ICANN will reject community developed proposals

Dear All .. 

I was not against issuing a statement at the beginning, but after reading Bruce's email, shared by Alissa, I believe it already responds to many of the points we want to make .. So if we are still to issue a statement, I believe it should be a bit different and somehow acknowledge the positive response provided (after seeking clarification on any unclear points of course) .. At the end, I would go by the group's decision but allow me to explain further my point .. 

- The statement already confirms that the 

o Board supports the community processes 

o ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms 

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

o 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 

- Unclear points 

o Whether the statement is made only on behalf of the Board or includes ICANN staff as well is still unclear; as rightly pointed out by Keith, Patrik and others .. It's interesting that the statement refers once to ICANN rather than ICANN Board .. I'm not sure whether this is intended or not .. But in all cases, we should explicitly ask the question and I believe Keith has already posed this question on the CCWG-ACCT mailing list .. 

o On Patrik's point " it also only talk about the by ICANN run processes (i.e. the CWG and CCWG, and not the other OCs for numbers and protocols) " .. Frankly I did not have the same impression, the first para refers to " community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability " which I thought would normally cover all OC processes including protocols and numbers .. the second para refers to " the various transition proposals, " which again I thought to include proposals submitted by protocols and numbers .. the 3 rd para refers only to " recent reports from the CWG and CCWG ", which I read as referencing the drafts currently open for public comment .. But again I see no harm from explicitly posing this question .. 

I have the feeling that posting the statement as initially discussed: 

- May bring us again the same response already submitted by Broad 

- We may not receive the required clarification on the above 2 unclear points 

- And may sound as if we were not informed about the Board's response 

So my suggestion is to: 

- Seek explicit clarification on the above 2 points and others, if any .. This could be done over email, through Broad liaison or any other appropriate means 

- Issue a statement that would re-iterate our principles and acknowledge the Board's confirmation on: ….. a list of what has been confirmed (hopefully all issues) 

Apologies for the long email and for not being so helpful in moving things forward but the Board's response has just been issued and circulated .. 

Happy to discuss further and equally happy to go by the group's decision should it end to be different .. 

Kind Regards 

--Manal 

From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mohamed El Bashir 
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 6:49 AM 
To: Drazek, Keith 
Cc: 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 > 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 > 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 > 
Date: May 6, 2015 at 3:19:59 PM PDT 
To: " accountability-cross-community at icann.org " < 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 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 

_______________________________________________ 
Internal-cg mailing list 
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 
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org 
_______________________________________________
Internal-cg mailing list
Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org
http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org