[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 and a way forward to include compromise text suggested by the Board
Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Sat Feb 6 18:27:47 UTC 2016
I'll respond to only one item in the WS2 issue set -- human rights.
In my view, the SSAC and RSSAC each, for their own reasons, reasonably
chose to have little direct involvement with the core ccwg-acct task,
improving some aspects of the Corporation's means of accountability.
Also, in my view, some who have contributed to the discussion of human
rights have framed the issue as one of free-speech and/or open-ness.
A framing of human rights limited to web sites (the resolved resources),
or their names (the referant to be resolved) or their authors (the hoary
old whois:43 problem), could exist unchanged were we to still be using
hosttables to publish name-to-resource mappings. Restated, what the IANA
Function comprises is not met by merely making policy w.r.t. speech or
access, even when one considers only the naming infrastructure. We have
touched on this through the Board's expression of support, as yet to be
implemented successfully, of geographic and economic diversity in the
Corporation's selection of contracted parties, also through the Board's
more successfully implemented expression of support for referants (names)
in languages which are not usually written in the Latin Script.
You may have observed that the current Chair of the IAB and I have different
views on what possible motivations lead to the statement by the Corporation
that resolution of the .eg namespace would not fail in the then-forseeable
future after all prefixes for Egyptian access networks were withdrawn.
You may not have observed that some have argued that IPv6 alloctions be
distributed by national sub-allocators, unlike IPv4 allocations, which are
mde by regional sub-allocators -- the five RIRs which make up both the NRO
and the ASO. The mechanism of national sub-allocation would present barriers
to operators seeking to serve diaspora populations -- Roms in Europe, Arabic
speakers in Europe, to take two well-known examples.
> If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts
> of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it.
I suggest that the decisions of SSAC and RSSAC, not to take an active
interest in improvements to corporate accountability, reasonable at the
time, can be revisited in the narrower context of identifying those
realized, and latent means of advancing human rights, within the core
functions of the IANA Functions contractor.
As I've mentioned, alternate point of view are available, and of course
I've nothing to do with either the SSAC or the RSSAC, or any other Bylaws
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community