[CCWG-ACCT] ICANN's reliance on ICP-1

[Nigel Roberts]

Bruce

What I'm more interested in is why the ICANN Board and Staff wishes to 
persist, in this longstanding and direct opposition to the ccTLD 
community with this ICP-1 nonsense. Since 1999 already.

ICP-1 is not, and never has been anything to do with ccTLDs. It was 
written on the back of an envelope by an ICANN staffer 15 years ago 
without any reference to anyone. It had ZERO input or approval from the 
community. It has neither legality nor legitimacy.

It was unanimously rejected by the ccTLD constituency immediately, and 
at the time.

A definitive analysis of the situation was written by one Kim Davies, 
then of CENTR, who I think you know in a different role today.

See also the below email from a former Chairman of the Board of ICANN 
(as he later became) to the DNSO (now ccNSO+gNSO).

Over a six year period, the ccNSO's Delegation and Redelegation Working 
Group, succeeded by the Framework of Interpretation Working Group 
examined, in considerable depth, the legal and policy background to 
ccTLD delegations, including ICANN's various unilateral attempts to 
impose changes to ccTLD procedures.

That WG (of which I have the honour to have been a member) found that 
ICP-1 has no status whatsoever in the management of ccTLDs relationship 
to the root zone.

The Framework of Interpretation (a guid to the construction of 
applicable ccTLD policy) was eventually formally adopted by the ICANN 
Board earlier this year.

Did you not take part in that vote?

The ICANN Board also at that time resolved to follow the ccNSO's 
recommendation, and archive ICP-1.

Yet, only in the last couple of weeks, ICANN, the Corporation chooses to 
continue to put ICP-1 before the Appeal Court as having some status.

And you (ICANN) continue to display ICP_1 on your website, as the 
definitive statement of ICANN's relationships with ccTLDs.

Some might be tempted, after 15 years of this behaviour,  to think it 
just /might/ be deliberate.

And you are STILL surprised that I sometimes have the perception that 
ICANN (as a collective) cannot be trusted and will not keep its word?

And THAT is the major question of accountability right there.


Nigel
--
Nigel Roberts, LLB, FBCS
Director, Island Networks Group
Tel. +44 20 7100 4319 or +1 360 227 6027


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Dengate Thrush [mailto:barrister at chambers.gen.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 2:26 AM
> To: Jonathan Cohen; ga at dnso.org; cctld-discuss at wwtld.org;
> board at aptld.org
> Subject: Re: on politics and trust
>
>
> Hi Jonathan
> Thanks.
> I assume this relates to ICP-1, and the allegations of changes to policy
> without proper processes being followed.
> The questions are simple, really.
> 1. Many people have pointed out that ICP-1 involves a change of policy.
The
> recent FAQ issued by the staff, one assumes without Board involvement,
> contains some further nonsense.
> This, despite the time it takes, is being dealt to by experts.
>
> 2. The board resolution only adopts the numbering system of ICP-1, not its
> contents.
>
> 3. The question for the Board to satisfy itself is: do the contents of
ICP-1
> constitute new policy in any respect? Or, when they were first
promulgated,
> did they?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>