[CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC

Wed Dec 31 22:11:29 UTC 2014

Dear Dr. Lisse

On what basis do you think it is out of scope?  I think that it directly
answers this question: "What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN's
accountability to the multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged
from its stewardship role?"  

As for opposing the proposal itself, perhaps you could explain why?  I've
never really understood why asking a question might be problematic.  It is
always the answers that get us in trouble :-).

Happy New Year all
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: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el at lisse.na] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:59 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: Lisse Eberhard; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30
December at 19:00 UTC

Bruce,

I also am concerned about the Policy Development Process here. The proposal
would remove the ccNSO (at least) of the possibility to develop Policy. 

I am not sure that Paul's proposal is supported by the ccTLD contingent in
the CCWG. I most certainly do not.

Even if the terminology was right :-)-O ("operation" of the IANA Function is
new, "management" is the accepted term and sufficient). But that is a side
issue, even if it were within scope, which I don't think it is.o

I can not support the substance, and would probably raise a formal objection
if it were polled as is.

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Dec 31, 2014, at 08:11, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
wrote:
> 
> Hello Paul,
> 
> 
>>> "Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability
recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or
contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and
operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent
mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing
community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that
narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
> 
> 
> Regarding your point (a) above - that seems much more limited than ICANN's
current purpose and mission.   Was that your intent?
> 
> From:  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/articles-2012-02-25-en
> 
> The articles of incorporation state that ICANN's purpose is:
> 
> 'In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the 
> fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned 
> by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation 
> shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable 
> and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and 
> promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of 
> the Internet by
> 
>    (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as 
> needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet;
> 
>    (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the 
> coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space;
> 
>    (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the 
> coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the 
> development of policies for determining the circumstances under which 
> new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system;
> 
>    (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root 
> server system; and
> 
>    (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of
items (i) through (iv)."
> 
> 
> Further, from:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#I    the bylaws
state the mission of ICANN as:
> 
> "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's
systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and
secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular,
ICANN:
> 
>    1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of 
> unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
> 
> 
>        a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
> 
>        b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system 
> ("AS") numbers; and
> 
>        c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
> 
>    2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server
system.
> 
>    3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related
to these technical functions"
> 
> 
> For example, if  ICANN is just restricted to managing and operating the
IANA function - that would remove ICANN from nearly all the gTLD policies
that are enforced by contract with gTLD registries and gTLD registrars.  In
fact ICANN would have no role whatsoever with respect to gTLD registrars as
they have nothing to do with the IANA function.   There would be no
involvement of ICANN in establishing requirements for collecting domain name
registrant (at the second level) contact information, publishing some of
that information, or facilitating the ability of consumers to move their
domain names from one registrar to another.  
> 
> While such restrictions may make sense for ccTLDs and IETF users of the
IANA functions, I would be surprised if the community wants to remove
ICANN's role with respect to gTLD policies.    At least there will be a cost
saving from having three ICANN public meetings a year - which mostly discuss
gTLD policies at the second level.
> 
> 
> I could see the ICANN board agreeing to accountability recommendations
that restrict  the scope of ICANN to its current purposes as defined in the
articles of incorporation and the bylaws.
> 
> Maybe the current articles of incorporation and bylaws are too broad and
the community might want to narrow their scope, but I would be surprised if
the ICANN community as a whole wants the scope restricted to just the IANA
functions.
> 
> I recognize that one of the concerns is that ICANN will be under
increasing pressure from some stakeholders to move further into areas of
regulating Internet content in some way.   I personally share that concern.
This could be perhaps handled through refining ICANN's bylaws with respect
to the mission.
> 
>> From an accountability point of view, the option is for this group to
consider accountability mechanisms to ensure that ICANN stays limited to its
current mission and purpose, and also have a mechanism for how that mission
and purposes could be further refined/restricted by the community.   
> 
> 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