Hi,

On 13-Aug-14 17:32, Dan Krimm wrote:
> 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.


I do.  I think that making IANA accountability part of the CWG's work it
accepts the challenge of coordinating them. And maybe even going further
than passive coordination.

Another point, is that IANA accountability is what counts in this case,
and while unlikely that some entity other than ICANN will end up
ultimately responsible for IANA, the accountability requirements for
that function stand separate and should apply to whatever entity ends up
responsible, next year or in 10 years. As such this group could come up
with requirements that do not immediately fall inside whatever it is we
end up doing about ICANN accountability - remember the note we just sent
about the ICANN accountability processes seeming rigged.

This is a good topic for discussion, and should be brought up in the
GNSO council discussions by our council members (myself included) if we
continue to find it  problematic.

avri