Hi Avri,

Thanks for following up on this. To be clear, the answers being solicited by the CWG-stewardship are meant to be provided by stakeholder groups, and not their representative members? If that is the case, then the NCSG Policy Committee will need to endorse the responses as NCSG input to the CWG.

Looking over the responses to the questions, it seems that most of the responses will need to be consolidated, but one conflict clearly stands out to me; the last response to question 2:

> This depends on whether there can be adequate accountability mechanism that empowers the policy making body community to be involved in the decision making making process that will affect their respective functions of IANA.


I am certainly NOT in favour of this answer being included in the NCSG response. For one thing, I’m not convinced that there is any guarantee that this level of accountability is achievable. Besides, the statement seems a little vague to me. The “policy making body community” includes the ICANN board and staff. Aren’t they the ones who need to be held accountable?

More importantly, I am very much in favour of one of the initial principles agreed to by the CWG early in its work - separation of ICANN’s policy development role from the IANA operator functions. 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. This is irrespective of ICANN’s overall accountability. These groups (including our own) are all geared towards policy development. Including actors of policy development in IANA decision-making processes could lead to attempts to abuse the IANA functions to influence policy decisions already made. Note that the community is already involved in policy implementation at an earlier stage in the process via GNSO implementation review teams. The IANA function should remain, to the extent possible, solely a technical function absent any policy agendas.

Well…, those are my thoughts for what they’re worth.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 24, 2015, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As I had indicated earlier, I had been collecting responses in a Drive doc:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U72dVBIuwU3eq8K1e3DWstXNZLOCpcB4YFvKmqHCHQ0/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> No one has  commented there in a few days, though we have seen some +1s on the list for Milton's position
> 
> I am copying the NCSG Policy Committee on this asking what they want to do.  A few of people have stood up for Milton's responses perhaps with a few quibbles, and he did already offer them as the NCSG positon in the live session.  On the other hand a few people have indicated some disagreement with his responses.  
> 
> While it is late, responses could still be submitted.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>