[CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:01:23PM -0500, Greg Shatan wrote:

> If it was any application beyond the new TLDs then maybe your
> concern is realized.

Yes, that's exactly what the concern is, as several of us have tried
to say in different ways.

ICANN is supposed to manage certain parts of the DNS, not "the DNS".
The DNS is designed _precisely_ to foil this kind of centralised
responsibility.  It's the only thing that has kept it around so long,
given all its faults.  Attempting to make ICANN responsible for
consumer trust in the DNS in general[1] is just another way of trying
to make ICANN into Lords of the Internet instead of insisting that
they be responsible, competent administrators of their narrow
technical function.  

If what you're arguing is that ICANN's previous AoC included as a
matter of words but not intent resposibility for stuff outside ICANN's
remit, I'm prepared to admit that.  But as a practical matter, in that
case, I think we still need to kick sorting that out to WS 2 and put
in this WS only the bit we all definitely agree was in scope: the new
TLD program.  Otherwise, we'll never ship the minimal stuff necessary
for the transition.  With the new community powers, the community will
be able to take the time to get any further analysis right and craft
text that is actually appropriate to ICANN's job.

A

[1] whatever that means, anyway.  It's to me like saying "consumer
trust in fuel ignition systems".  Do drivers even know whether their
cars have a fuel ignition system?  If your car breaks down, do you get
angry at Bosch or NGK or Denso, or do get angry at whoever made your
car?  I actually know who made my "ignition system" (and the cheating,
lying software inside it -- mine isn't a separate part of the engine),
but I'm still mad at VW.

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com