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

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Tue Dec 30 14:11:35 UTC 2014 

Dear All,
 I  ALSO think Avri is 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. *



 COMMENT FROM KAVOUSS

This has exactly been proposed by CWG in their outcome draft to which the
Board disagreed in its recent publication for public comments and I have
surprised to read that and thus asked to discuss that  matter in the agenda
of this evening ,30 December CALL

*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.” *

COMMENT FROM KAVOUSS

I do not understand why the Board will not accept that .They have told in
their views for public comment that " it is duplication of work " does it
means that any mechanism to properly address the replacement of NTIA for
IANA functions are duplication of work?
Does it mean that if no replacement is proposed and the function trusted to
ICANN without a clear responsibility and transparaency in an acciountable
manner it is not duplication ?
Are we exchanging  NTIA by ICANN ?
Under the current practice, at least ICANN is accountable to NTIA .
After the transition ICANN WOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE TO WHICH ENTITY?
This is a core issue and must be fully examined and resolved
Kavouss



2014-12-30 14:16 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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/20141230/306de25b/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list