Hi Seun,

On Feb 24, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Seun Ojedeji <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

[snip]

> As a member of the NCSG policy committee, I cannot endorse a statement by this stakeholder group that says external oversight is unnecessary in the event that certain accountability measures are taken.
> 
> Interesting conclusion. You are simply saying that the multistakeholder community within ICANN is not enough to keep ICANN accountable even if relevant empowerment is provided. You are implying we need and can trust a group from outside to look upon the activities of ICANN and its community. Its really strange that you will feel comfortable with that especially given the requirement NTIA. I really wonder why people was clamouring for USA hands of IANA(although it always had it planned) in the first place if we don't even believe in ourselves.

That’s not really what I’m saying at all. The ICANN community involved in policy development (SOs/ACs) should be empowered to hold ICANN accountable in its role of policy development and policy implementation. There is work being done on several fronts in that regard.

I don’t believe that this same community is necessarily the ideal one to monitor and hold the IANA operator accountable for carrying out the technical names functions of IANA. That’s all. The SOs/ACs (including the stakeholder groups of the GNSO) involved in gTLD policy development represent special interests in policy discussions that don’t belong in IANA. The ICANN board is (to an extent) representative of this community. So, IMHO, keeping ICANN accountable and keeping the names function within IANA accountable are two different issues. Conflating the two is not, in my opinion, very helpful.

Thanks.

Amr