Hi Amr

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hmm. I would agree that the community en masse needs to be accountable
> through processes that require accountability at all levels of policy
> development. I disagree in characterising that accountability as
> bi-directional. I don’t see why the community needs to be accountable to
> the board, but to be honest, I haven’t given that much thought before. I
> think the top of the process needs to be accountable to the bottom, not the
> other way around. For example, as an NCSG representative on the GNSO
> Council, I believe I need to be accountable to the NCSG membership. I do
> not believe I owe any accountability to the GNSO Chair, or the ICANN board.
> In fact, bi-directional accountability in my case may present me with
> unavoidable conflicts.
>

I guess the point i was driving at is that the process that the community
(NCSG for instance) itself use to keep the top(board for instance)
accountable needs to prove to the top that its indeed making a
representative view of many. I see the aspect of ensuring that leaders of
SO/AC stick to their respective processes as an accountability on the side
of the community which is different from those required from board. In
summary we cannot put the community in the position of "always right" and
the board in the "always wrong" position that is what i mean by
bi-directional.


>
>
> I was never really comfortable with the idea of directly involving the
>> ICANN SOs and ACs in the oversight or decision-making processes of IANA.
>>
>
> Well the task is to transition to multistakeholder community and the RIR
> community for instance has always ensured that its community developed
> policy is what is used to operate functions related to numbers....such
> needs to be ensured with names. That is what i mean by involvement, not
> necessarily giving SOs and ACs direct postsitions/roles to manage IANA but
> making sure their policies and collective views influence the manner by
> which IANA operate.
>
>
> Great. So we are in agreement there. However, the task was never,
> strictly-speaking, “to transition to multistakeholder community”. Rather
> ICANN was tasked to convene a process by which the global multi-stakeholder
> community determines how best the stewardship transition takes place. There
> was no predetermined outcome stipulating where the stewardship was required
> to land. Only conditions limiting capture by certain stakeholders
> (governments and inter-governmental organisations) in addition to some
> other prerequisites the NTIA has set.
>

Hmm...perhaps i should further clarify; apart from other 3 requirements,
NTIA requires that the solution should support and enhance multistakeholder
model and that to me is a specific recipient.


>
> As a member of the NCSG policy committee, I cannot endorse a statement by
> this stakeholder group that says external oversight is unnecessary in the
> event that certain accountability measures are taken.
>

Interesting conclusion. You are simply saying that the multistakeholder
community within ICANN is not enough to keep ICANN accountable even if
relevant empowerment is provided. You are implying we need and can trust a
group from outside to look upon the activities of ICANN and its community.
Its really strange that you will feel comfortable with that especially
given the requirement NTIA. I really wonder why people was clamouring for
USA hands of IANA(although it always had it planned) in the first place if
we don't even believe in ourselves.


> I hope that you and others who believe this to be the case don’t take it
> personally. I just simply don’t see it that way. It is my understanding
> that that is the majority opinion here as well.
>

Definitely, maybe i am alone with that view as its been said by a few
members of NCSG but again its just a single member's view ;-). I believe
with the right mechanism inplace, the community can charge the board to
continue to perform one of its obligations; which is to ensure that IANA as
a priority does its record management/keeping in a manner that maintains
the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS. IANA is just a
bunch of staff that implements existing instructions, so they are the wrong
set of people to keep watch on...it is the source of the instructions they
use that needs flogging and redress.

Thanks

Regards

>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !