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

[Lynn St.Amour]

In addition to the comments already raised, I find it particularly concerning that Bruce includes that quote but then does not address it more directly.  It certainly seems as if his intent WAS to address it, so the very careful wording is "unexpected".   

Also, it would have been nice to see more support for the OC's rights to determine appropriate fall-back mechanisms (these are the communities, along with "Internet users" that rely on them after all), and there are plenty of opportunities (for ICANN) to help improve them if they are found wanting.  

Lynn

PS. I feel like the ICG has been put on notice as well, but maybe it has just been too long a day.


On May 7, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> A very carefully worded response, which raises deep concern on my part.
>  
> Bruce does _not_ directly reject the statement that the board will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor. There is instead vague wording about how they accept the need for “fall back mechanisms” and the need to “document processes for handling any failures.”
>  
> I was looking for something more like: “no one ever said that,” or “that statement does not represent the board position and we have muzzled the person who said it,” or “we dissociate ourselves from that statement.”  
>  
> --MM
>  
> 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