On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, Milton L Mueller wrote:

---snip---

> An extreme example of such interdependency and coordination would be to not complete the transition until certain commitments are made on the broader accountability process.

a first reaction to the interdependency issue is to support the idea that
ICANN transparancy must be done before IANA transition can proceed.

but on further reflection, there are historical anchors and traditions in
ICANN that make the kind of transparancy and accountability our constituency
seeks difficult and perhaps unachievable in the broader politics that will
ultimately determine the outcome.

> I am afraid the CWG charter sets up the false notion that the two things are completely detached and separate processes, which is exactly what ICANN wants and exactly what advocates of accountability don't want.

on the other hand, if the two accountability issues are kept separate,
then it is easier to get rules for accountability that we would like to see
approved for the IANA function as an independent entity.   for instance,
so far as i know there are no issues on trademark on the identifier names
for new service descriptions and for registering enterprise identifiers for
SNMP.

therefore, it seems likely that a stronger accountability and transparency
charter can reach full community agreement on the IANA functions as
independent from the issues that will dilute our vision of accountability
of the full ICANN.

so i'm wondering if this is what Avri is saying to us.

Milton, can you summarise the argument that suggests that accountability
as an IANA independent process would be compromised more than keeping it
dependent on achieving a good result for all of ICANN?

-ron