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

Tue Dec 30 13:16:47 UTC 2014

Bruce

Regarding your last below re: the seeking of consensus before spending on broadband, I think we have a fundamental disagreement.  Even if the entire community were to want to do that, ICANN would be the wrong mechanism for achieving that goal -- for much the same reason that we don't ask a Department of Education to manage the health care system in a country.  Both are important "good governance" functions but for reasons of expertise, focus and management we don't accept that.  For that reason I see it as essential to prevent as far as is practicable ICANN from straying beyond the IANA mission.  "Even the best intentions oft lead men astray."

Paul

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:17 AM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

Hello Paul,

>>  I think Avri is exactly right – the solution set is binary.  If the 
>> Board/ICANN will accept in WS1 a proposl for a strong contractual boundary on what they may do along with an external mechanism that can be invoked by the community to police that boundary, then most of the other accountability can be in WS2.  But my current understanding is that the Board/ICANN will not accept such a proposal – indeed when I last spoke of it to a Board member, I was told it was “unnecessary.”

I don’t think you should make that assumption yet.     There is a difference between the Board’s views in forming a new entity (Contract Co.)  to replace the NTIA, and the aboard agreeing to terms in contracts with the users of the IANA functions that may limit what it can do.    There are already requirements on ICANN in the gTLD registry agreement for example:

From:  http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.htm

"Article 3 "COVENANTS OF ICANN"

 ICANN covenants and agrees with Registry Operator as follows:

      3.1           Open and Transparent. Consistent with ICANN’s expressed mission and core values, ICANN shall operate in an open and transparent manner.

      3.2           Equitable Treatment.  ICANN shall not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and shall not single out Registry Operator for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause. 

      3.3           TLD Nameservers.  ICANN will use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that any changes to the TLD nameserver designations submitted to ICANN by Registry Operator (in a format and with required technical elements specified by ICANN at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/ will be implemented by ICANN within seven (7) calendar days or as promptly as feasible following technical verifications.

      3.4           Root-zone Information Publication.  ICANN’s publication of root-zone contact information for the TLD will include Registry Operator and its administrative and technical contacts.  Any request to modify the contact information for the Registry Operator must be made in the format specified from time to time by ICANN at http://www.iana.org/domains/root/.

      3.5           Authoritative Root Database.  To the extent that ICANN is authorized to set policy with regard to an authoritative root server system (the “Authoritative Root Server System”), ICANN shall use commercially reasonable efforts to (a) ensure that the authoritative root will point to the top-level domain nameservers designated by Registry Operator for the TLD, (b) maintain a stable, secure, and authoritative publicly available database of relevant information about the TLD, in accordance with ICANN publicly available policies and procedures, and (c) coordinate the Authoritative Root Server System so that it is operated and maintained in a stable and secure manner; provided, that ICANN shall not be in breach of this Agreement and ICANN shall have no liability in the event that any third party (including any governmental entity or internet service provider) blocks or restricts access to the TLD in any jurisdiction."

As a result of recommendations from this working group - additional text could be  made part of the standard gTLD registry and registrar agreements.

>>  And we have seen that ICANN sometimes has ambitions to do more than IANA – witness the proposal to spend money on broadband expansion.  

Yes - I believe that statement was a possible area of spending noted by the CEO.   I note however that it is  not part of any approved budget, and the Board would be seeking a consensus of the ICANN community before it authorised such expenditure from any auction proceeds.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community