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
>
>