Hi Avri,

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Avri Doria <[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
> >
> >
>
>