[CCWG-ACCT] [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Mon Nov 9 05:23:13 UTC 2015


Deasr All,
Perhaps the issue was much simpler and straigjht forward than wjhat we
discussing.
Wouildn't be more prudent to keep the texct as iot was and when ever ,we
refer to coorinationin the text we complemented it b" and support ,where
applicable and required"
The rest unchanged$
Regards
Kavouss

2015-11-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>:

> Pasted below is my response to Andrew last week, which clarifies my
> own position, including fuller text from my original post that did not
> go to the list.
>
>
> Seth
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Figured this will be asked and have to be answered at some point but not
> > this early. I think it's just fine to get roles clarified as much as
> > possible at this time in the interest of the future.
> >
> >
> http://www.afrinic.net/blog/21-the-journey-to-dublin-and-beyond-iana-stewardship-transition-and-icann-accountability
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> > Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> >
> > On 3 Nov 2015 01:55, "Padmini" <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> In light of this thread,  does it then make sense to completely separate
> >> the three functions post the transition?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on
> Mission Statement
> To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> Cc: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, Steve Crocker
> <steve at stevecrocker.com>, Accountability Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>, "IAB at Iab.org"
> <IAB at iab.org>
>
>
> I would state that intergovernmental authorities come into play now.
> My point isn't that these functions are or should be coordinated by
> ICANN, nor that they should not be coordinated by IETF.  My point is
> that the role of governments is now becoming more determinative
> (despite the conduct of the coordination in IETF).
>
> This edit, removing the (incorrect) use of the term coordination in
> relation to ICANN and turning it into support and collaboration serves
> to leave the functions in the intergovernmental context.  Even if you
> continue to conduct the processes in IETF.  Not sure even specifying
> somewhere (which is probably the case somewhere) changes it.
>
> Not constructing any type of argument that ICANN had this coordinating
> function, unless in the perhaps interesting sense that having the term
> there helped make things look like governments didn't possess this
> authority.  I maintain that we're just clearing the path for them to
> finally actually start asserting their intergovernmental authority.
>
> This seems like just another case of the message not getting through.
> If that's the case, I'll revert to saying "Just watch."  :-)
>
> (added my text back in below yours)
>
>
> Seth
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Andrew Sullivan
> <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've trimmed some of the cc:s because I'm not really sure why the
> > original was copied all over.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:08:34PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> >> The real question relates to context in the transition though: where are
> >> core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that function is
> >> removed from ICANN?
> >
> > They are co-ordinated exactly where they have been at least since the
> > founding of ICANN: at the IETF.  The IETF makes the decisions about
> > the protocol parameters registries.  ICANN, in its role as IANA,
> > records those decisions.  The ICANN role in this case is basically
> > clerical.  The IETF has been perfectly clear about this all the way
> > through the entire process.  So has ICANN: that's what the MoU between
> > ICANN and the IETF (and IAB) says.
> >
> > I suppose it would be possible to construct an argument that ICANN had
> > this "co-ordination" function when there was still a Protocol
> > Supporting Organization, but since the PSO went away rather a long
> > time ago, that argument is no longer available in any case.  (I happen
> > not to accept that argument anyway, but since it doesn't ramify I
> > don't think it's worth exploring in detail.)
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > A (speaking for myself)
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The real question relates to context in the transition though: where
> are core registries and protocol parameters coordinated, if that
> function is removed from ICANN?  The question may not be so simple as
> the tech community might think.
>
> We are moving from one context to another (a very different
> stewardship context), and that changes things thoroughly in this case
> (and generally should have been borne in mind in any such process
> transition).
>
> To put this in context further, I essentially brought this question up
> at NetMundial:
>
> Last NetMundial Panel on the IANA Transition:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=5713
>
> My question:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=10186
>
> Heather Dryden of GAC responded, though did not acknowledge that
> governmental authority (or intergovernmental, as the resolutions I
> referenced are largely ITU) would be already relevant even at that
> stage for these supposedly "merely" technical functions, and steered
> the question toward the names function instead:
>
> Heather Dryden's (limited) response to my question:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2DAvj5M60k#t=10400
>
> I believe the ccTLDs were already in a position to act in those
> "merely" technical areas even from that point (from the standpoint of
> authority over their own country domains, though not necessarily so
> free from the standpoint of what we were supposedly doing with a
> multistakeholder/non-intergovernmental process -- plus all that "one
> net" talk  :-)  ) but we were supposedly striving toward a
> non-intergovernmental process according to NTIA, and the truth is the
> public policy implications of acting even in these areas are not
> really so "merely technical."
>
> I don't believe it would generally be accepted that this version of
> oversight would be established by the IANA Transition without engaging
> on its ramifications.
>
> <snip>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151109/fc3f2a86/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list