A point worth making (and worth detailing as you just did). I find that
these points (the finer points of interpretation that separates
"cross-polination" from "the works of one cannot be completed untill the
work of the other is satisfied with regard x, y, z") are better to be
fully expressed rather than being implied as extreme examples of.
That is of course, if they *can* be expressed formally and politically
(and I can't be a good judge of that from where I stand). if they can't
be expressed politically yet, then might as well let them be implied,
but I believe that commencing power struggles later is rarely the better
tactic.
Nicolas
On 14/08/2014 9:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> The statement of the ICG is even stronger than Dan suggests. We said:
>
> "the two processes are interrelated and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work."
>
> This is not just "talking to each other" and "cross pollinating, it suggests that they are interdependent and thus should coordinate. 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. 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.
>
> I don't understand why Avri is not seeing this and offering apologias for the oversight in the CWG charter.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> Of Dan Krimm
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:33 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
>>
>> Yes they both say that, but then IGC additionally goes on to say something
>> not said in the other statement:
>>
>> - even though they are separate, they are related in purpose (and each
>> resulting policy tangibly affects the other jurisdiction) and therefore should
>> be coordinated
>>
>> So, if one accepts as true the notion that each jurisdiction's results will affect
>> the other jurisdiction significantly, then even if the specific working groups
>> have narrow scope of authority and jurisdiction, they still ought to be talking
>> to each other along the way, perhaps cross-pollinating each other with ideas
>> and monitoring each others'
>> progress.
>>
>> The goal would be to make the two results (policies) compatible anywhere
>> they affect each other significantly.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
>> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, August 13, 2014 2:16 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think they both say a similar thing.
>>>
>>> - the greater ICANN accountability is seperate
>>> - accountability related to IANA is in scope
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13-Aug-14 17:01, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> I am wondering why this statement on accountability seems to assume
>>>> that there is "no linkage" between ICANN accountability and IANA
>>>> accountability, when, in fact, there is.
>>>>
>>>> "Any linkages between the work of the CWG on the IANA transition and
>>>> the broader ICANN Accountability Review Process with regard to ICANN
>>>> policy are outside the scope of this group's work. Accountability for
>>>> the administration of the IANA functions (i.e., implementation and
>>>> operational accountability), however, is properly within the scope of
>>>> this working group."
>>>>
>>>> The ICG charter handled this relationship in a much better way:
>>>>
>>>> " The IANA stewardship transition process is taking place alongside a
>>>> parallel and related process on enhancing ICANN accountability. While
>>>> maintaining the accountability of Internet identifier governance is
>>>> central to both processes, this group's scope is focused on the
>>>> arrangements required for the continuance of IANA functions in an
>>>> accountable and widely accepted manner after the expiry of the
>>>> NTIA-ICANN contract. Nevertheless, the two processes are interrelated
>>>> and interdependent and should appropriately coordinate their work."
>>>>
>>>> --MM
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss
>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 1:42 PM To:
>>>>> [log in to unmask] Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd:
>>>>> [CWG-DT-Stewardship] Final Draft Charter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Next step is SOAC chartering organization review and hopefully
>>>>> approval so we can actually start the work.
>>>>>
>>>>> avri
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CWG-DT-Stewardship]
>>>>> Final Draft Charter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all, Attached is the final version of the draft charter.
>>>>
|
