[CCWG-Accountability] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

[Steve DelBianco]

Dr. Lisse —In compiling a list of overall ICANN accountability mechanisms,  I have been eager to accommodate suggestions from all CCWG participants.  But I would say that your note (below) is suggesting mechanisms for the transition of IANA functions  — not for overall ICANN accountability.

So I have not entered your points in the current inventory<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accountability%20suggestions%20%5Bdraft%205.1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1419814534000&api=v2>, but please let me know if you feel that your suggestions are actually within scope of our CCWG.

—Steve

On 12/29/14, 7:20 PM, "'Dr Eberhard W Lisse'" <epilisse at gmail.com<mailto:epilisse at gmail.com>> wrote:

I have been making that suggestion already, numerous times, to NTIA, ICANN/Chehade, ccNSO, CWG.

EACH current ccTLD Manager (not Registry) who does not have one yet, needs to enter into a BILATERAL contract with the IANA Function Manager. And, NOBODY ELSE, has input there.

Basically the contract will not state less than unless the ccTLD Manager substantially misbehaves, the IANA Function Manager will take no unilateral action of any kind against the ccTLD Manager, ie the FoI Principles. I will assume that it will also not state less than that unless the IANA Function Manager substantially misbehaves the ccTLD Manager will take no unilateral action against the IANA Function Manager. Or words to that extent.

In other words, codify the status quo.

And, of course, if a CONSENTED revocation from such a "contracted" ccTLD Manager happened, the subsequent delegation to a new ccTLD Manager would require a new contract, which could be identical to the above, or be entirely different.

I do not mind at all any measure to hold the IANA Function Manager accountable to the terms of any such contract.

I also would like to see measures in place that assured that ccTLD Managers without a contract would not be treated worse than a "contracted" one, ie maybe we can develop a "sample contract" as base of departure. But, that Is quite a separate issue, in itself.


el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Dec 29, 2014, at 20:38, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
com
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20141229/005c253f/attachment.html>