[CCWG-ACCT] [Notify] CCWG ACCT Stress Tests Working Group Meeting

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Steve,

In any case, the stress test 21 as written does not use the correct
terminology and assumes procedures which are not described, and does
not incorporate the Framework of Interpretation Principles.


The only objection to a revocation and transfer request comes from
the incumbent manager.  If the manager gives informed, voluntary
consent the process can proceed.  If not, that's it, unless there is
substantial misconduct, where the IANA Function Manager can revoke
on own initiative, even, as last resort.  There is no consideration
of objections of Interested Parties or Significantly Interested
Parties.  Hence no awaiting the bottom-up consensus decision of
affected stakeholders.

There are no existing accountability measures.  It is not the
community that can challenge, as no third party is involved, only
the incumbent manager.


The proposed measures are all retro-active.

The Framework of Interpretation Principles must be implemented as
Policy binding on the IANA Function Manager.

We can then look at what we can propose when they don't abide.


I have issues with 19 as well (never mind the terminology).

Have I overlooked how the IANA Function Manager is supposed to be
shielded from law suits?  It is not my subject matter expertise as
it pertains to gTLDs but I would assume that the jurisdiction is
specified in gTLD agreements.

[...]

Again, this call is not going to take place at 11:00 UTC, though it is
starting to look like an accountability issue how the scheduling was
handled.

el