[CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers

Nigel Roberts nigel at channelisles.net
Tue Feb 9 14:51:41 UTC 2016


I'm generally content with this approach.

But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.


On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> .INT was discussed at length.
> The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT
> Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time.
> I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Martin Boyle
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM
>> To: Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>; accountability-cross-
>> community at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with
>> respect to rood servers
>>
>> Nigel,
>>
>> .int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the
>> conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles
>> and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider
>> whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation
>> process.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>> Nigel Roberts
>> Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with
>> respect to rood servers
>>
>> In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
>>
>> It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor,
>> both referee and player.
>>
>> I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as
>> registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove
>> any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
>>
>> (See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
>>
>>
>>
>> On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities
>> related to root servers.
>>>
>>> The text is not separated into two separate points.   One relates to
>> coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
>>>
>>> ICANN:
>>>
>>> 1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS
>>> root name server system."
>>>
>>> 2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root
>>> name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bruce Tonkin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
>> Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
>> Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list