Hi Amr, On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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? > Considering that the suggestion came from me, i will attempt to give my reasons not necessarily to insist that my comments be taken but with the hope of clarifying the "vague" part of your statement. Here is the question again: Are you comfortable with ICANN as policy-maker also being the IANA operator > without the benefit of external oversight? > I understood the question to be asking about a future scenario and not present. The "policy making body community" represents the multistakeholder community that exist within ICANN, while i agree that ICANN board could be seen as part of the community the main point for me is that the operation of IANA should reflect collective view of the community as much as possible. So if the NTIA oversight is gone and there is adequate community involvement in the operation of IANA then i would personally be comfortable with ICANN being a policy maker and operator since the operation would rely strongly on the community developed policies. As to your question about who is to be held accountable, i think its the board and the entire community. While its the board that we are pointing fingers at right now, we need to ensure that any transition ensure accountability of both sides of the community. So a bi-directional accountability is required as the non-board community also have leaders and members who needs to be accountable as well. > > 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. > If you agree that the current separation reflects what you are in favour of then i think we are not far from our thoughts. > 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. > Well the task is to transition to multistakeholder community and the RIR community for instance has always ensured that its community developed policy is what is used to operate functions related to numbers....such needs to be ensured with names. That is what i mean by involvement, not necessarily giving SOs and ACs direct postsitions/roles to manage IANA but making sure their policies and collective views influence the manner by which IANA operate. Regards 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !