[CCWG-ACCT] Further Objection to the Methodology
steve at shinkuro.com
Wed Apr 15 14:27:56 UTC 2015
Your characterization of the due diligence process for delegations and re-delegations is inaccurate. The Board pays close attention to each and every one of these actions. Over time, a process has evolved which puts the majority of the burden on the staff, thereby resulting in checklist, but the Board does not blindly accept the paperwork and has pushed back or questioned the action if there is anything that appears amiss.
That said, the Board does want to be in the position of making primary decisions about delegations and re-delegations, nor should it be. We need a more robust process. The Framework of Interpretation is one positive step in that direction.
Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
On Apr 15, 2015, at 10:21 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse <el at lisse.NA> wrote:
> Dear Co-Chairs,
> This is not related to the transition, because they do revoke ccTLDs
> and then transfer them (formerly known as redelegation) already.
> The IANA Function department staff pressurize the Contacts, send
> boiler plate to the Board which nods the cases through without
> debate on the Consent Agenda, forward to the NTIA which runs a
> spelling checker on it and Verisign changes the root zone entry.
> There is no accountability whatsoever, of any kind to nobody. Nada,
> Nil, None. Not to the individual ccTLD Manager, not the ccNSO or to
> any ccTLD Community.
> They most certainly can not just come and say: "You ccTLD Manager
> must band together in a manner prescribed by us otherwise we don't
> listen to you".
> What does "greater oversight" mean? Even if the ccTLD Manager for
> (the non existing) .XX were a member of the ccNSO, that does not
> mean the ccNSO can act on his behalf, not even if specifically asked
> to do so, as there is no such ICANN/ccNSO policy.
> The GAC and gNSO act by CONSENSUS, the ccNSO would have to act by
> UNANIMITY of all 253 (or however many) ccTLD Managers (and not just
> ccNSO members) or in individual cases on instruction of the affected
> individual ccTLD Manager. And who takes responsibility if something
> goes wrong?
> ccTLD Managers do not have a multilateral relationship, it is even
> debatable if they have bilateral relationship to the IANA Function
> Manager or any relationship at all. Some of them existed many years
> before ICANN was created.
> What matters is what the legal basis is, upon which the IANA
> Function Manager purports to base their authority to act against a
> ccTLD Manager, not where it must be debated.
> And, we need to debate this with sufficient knowledge of the subject
> matter down to the details.
> I appreciate Keith stating he lacks that detailed knowledge, and my
> experience that this is the case for many members and observers.
> I must confess I lack the detailed insight into the gTLD processes,
> but therefor I keep out of this area. Even though I am part of
> AfriCANN (an ALAC initiative) I only engage there reluctantly and
> not often, because I run a ccTLD Manager even though I have some
> technical and development interests and experience.
> I have been trying to convey for quite a while now that it is wrong
> to try to create mechanisms when we don't know EXACTLY what we are
> dealing with and what the consequences will be.
> We need to start at the beginning, not in the middle. Not even just
> because we have a structure in place.
> greetings, el
> On 2015-04-15 14:29, Drazek, Keith wrote:
>> Dear Eberhard, Akinbo and Sean,
>> While I agree this issue requires deliberate treatment, I have a
>> few questions in response to points raised in this thread.
>> Why couldn't a subset of ccTLD members (those who have joined the
>> ccNSO) collaborate to make the ccNSO a statutory member of ICANN?
>> We're not talking about every registry (gTLD or ccTLD) or
>> individual person who participates in ICANN becoming a direct
>> That some ccTLDs choose to not join the ccNSO shouldn't prevent
>> those who have joined from cooperating to give the ccNSO greater
>> oversight of ICANN's Board and staff. Or am I missing something?
>> Please help me understand the specific ccTLD concern in this
>> If we're designing an accountability framework for ICANN and its
>> community, how can we be expected to accommodate and incorporate
>> the interests of self-determined outsiders other than to invite
>> them to join the community and participate in its processes? In
>> my view, anyone with interests impacted by ICANN should get
>> involved and not sit outside looking in.
>> Also, Eberhard, I'm not clear on why the legal foundation for the
>> USG's claim on the IANA functions/root is relevant to the
>> discussion of ICANN's accountability to the community, which is
>> the focus of this group. Perhaps that is a topic more relevant to
>> the work of the CWG Transition? Again, I may be missing something
>> and would welcome the dots being connected.
>> Sent from my iPhone
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar)
> el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> PO Box 8421 \ /
> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community