Comment on the process

["Richard Hill" <rhill@xxxxxxxxx>]

Please find below my comments regarding the enhancing accountability
process.

1) Since this process is limited to issues related to the proposed
transition of the stewardship of the IANA function, I think that it would be
better to merge it into the process that is considering that transition, so
that only one process deals with all of the issues related to the
transition.  That is, I would suggest that this process be closed and that
the accountability issue be taken up by the ICG.

2) I agree with those of have criticized this process, in particular because
it gives full powers to the ICANN Board.  Since the issue is how to replace
the oversight provided to date by an organization external to ICANN (NTIA),
the decision regarding replacing that oversight should not, in my view, be
made by ICANN itself.  The decision should be made by the global
multi-stakeholder community, as called for by NTIA in its announcement
regarding the transition of stewardship of the IANA function.

I incorporate here by reference the criticisms that can be found at the
following links:

  http://ipjustice.org/wp/2014/08/21/quelle-suprise-icann%E2%80%99s-accounta
bility-plan-gives-icann-board-total-control-icann-limits-accountability-impr
ovement-measures-to-toothless-self-policing/

  http://www.internetcommerce.org/accountability_pushback/

  http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/08/a-tale-of-two-processes/

Sincerely,
Richard Hill