Hi,

I can report that a few people in the CWG drafting team have indicated
sympathy with Milton's point and assuming there is more agreement in the
discussion, may be willing to substitute the langauge.

I haven't been convinced and think people are missing the point. But in
the long run that probably doesn't matter.  If I find myself in a
dissenting group of one, I won't create a kurfuffle.

avri


On 14-Aug-14 11:14, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
> Hi Avri, 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     As I said, the CWG has defined the notion of IANA accountability as
>     being in scope for the CWG.  I think that is a stronger alternative as
>     no matter what process ICANN picks to resolve its accountability
>     problems, the CWG can make its own determinations on IANA
>     accountability.
> 
> 
> Sure.
>  
> 
>     And since this is ICANN, many of the same people will be on both, or
>     will cooordinate through their SOAC and SG/Cs.
> 
> 
> Sure. But I do agree that having similar language where possible will
> prevent misunderstandings, avoid loopholes, etc.:
> 
> 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 [pertaining
> to DNS root zone management] 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.
> 
> -- B
> 
>     avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     On 14-Aug-14 09:49, Avri Doria wrote:
>     > On 14-Aug-14 09:40, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>     >> I don't understand why Avri is not seeing this and offering apologias
>     >> for the oversight in the CWG charter.
>     >
>     > Hey, I am in the room.
>     >
>     > Because i disagree and think what we have is stronger.
>     >
>     > avri
>     >
>     >
> 
>