Concern about scope of accountability issues in the current formulation

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This is an individual comment.


Thank you scheduling this comment period.  I believe that any time
that response to a comment period results in a document that is
significantly different from what had been previously commented on, it
should be the subject of another comment period.

The current write up restricts the process to:

> Statements made by the NTIA since posting clarify that this
> process is limited to ensuring ICANN remains accountable in the
> absence of its contractual relationship with the U.S. Government.

However, ATRT2 recommendation 9.2 calls for:

> 9. Consideration of decision-making inputs and appeals processes

...

> 9.2. Explore Options for Restructuring Current Review Mechanisms 
> The ICANN Board should convene a Special Community Group, which 
> should also include governance and dispute resolution expertise, to
> discuss options for improving Board accountability with regard to
> restructuring of the Independent Review Process (IRP) and the
> Reconsideration Process. The Special Community Group will use the
> 2012 Report of the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP) as
> one basis for its discussions. All recommendations of this Special
> Community Group would be subject to full community participation,
> consultation and review, and must take into account any limitations
> that may be imposed by ICANN’s structure, including the degree to
> which the ICANN Board cannot legally cede its decision-making to, 
> or otherwise be bound by, a third party.

Given that the Board has agreed to the ATRT2 recommendations and that
the issues of accountability in respect to the NTIA contract may
overlap with those in ATRT2 recommendations 9 and especially with 9.2,
it is reasonable that these be combined into a single ICANN effort.
Until this specific qualification was written in, I had assumed this
to be a combined effort.  I am surprised to find it isn't.

I acknowledge that the issues under 9.2 may be more extensive than
those specifically needed to cover the NTIA question, but believe that
the Accountability effort MUST (ref. IETF BCP 14) include both.

I recommend that the group have two sequential milestones:

1. The minimum necessary accountability conditions for allowing the
NTIA contract to elapse.  This would need to be completed before any
recommendation to NTIA could be made on the transfer of IANA stewardship.

2. Meeting the full extent of accountability requirements as required
in ATRT2 recommendation 9.2

I support the architecture that has been designed for resolving the
accountability issues. I also appreciate the effort that has been put
into meeting the calls from the community for changes to specific
details of the solution.

Avri Doria
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUDfGuAAoJEOo+L8tCe36HWVQH/R0At5/XJN+Rh/5f1m87g5Eo
IBrYTkXR6lN1hEwzBVo+UbcAWvC0aa+YROOfAlFoo+hdCoAongTlW3R4/xkNsmH9
CBTdckWc642sofjBEHMrcwNvvApiInfDo+xoG+OE5DjKxFmlG6M2CRuI2jMvHgrc
V99axIgvz6TXnY9pOdXWQs1a4wY05lh8bENc98YDjeV8kL2R5fVnAHSG8MeMbw97
g2yJJbKddOGyaVsn0B9K7T8SQimW5sNjD/ePT77nUhQOcrf5TY1nxXPueV4hmJnB
Q/Czt0L+jogNuAp9fSi7HheK/HByaQpWXK6c+asEbDAjJmcJb/YnW1gwiT7QZYI=
=jCn9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----