[DT-F] Design Team F kickoff

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

Agreed
On 13/04/2015 11:19 am, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

>  Realized I had never answered David.
>
> At 08/04/2015 10:43 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
>  I was certainly not looking for pre-ICANN or even very early ICANN
> history. There are plenty of stories about that time.
>
>
> That's putting it mildly. The perhaps surprising part is that the
> ramifications of that early history still have an impact on IANA Function
> operations.
>
>  If I can summarize:
> - there are relatively few "recent" occurrences where some parties have
> deemed policy to be violated;
> - where they have occurred, others have felt that the policy may have been
> interpreted differently that the objector did, but it was not likely a
> clear violation of policy;
>
>
> In my opinion, yes.
>
>  - The NTIA backstop had no impact on reducing such possible problems.
>
>
> I probably wouldn't say "no impact" as I suspect the fact that NTIA was
> "in the loop" probably had some implications, perhaps if only because
> people misunderstood NTIA's actual role and as a result, didn't make
> attempts they otherwise would have.
>
> However, I would say that the exercising of the Root Zone Administrator by
> NTIA did not result in the rejection of a change request for policy (or
> other) reasons.
>
>  Regarding your last paragraph, many moons ago at the CWG meeting in
> Frankfurt, I suggested that along with an appeal process, we might need
> something equivalent to a injunction to prevent IANA from implementing a
> proposed change pending appeal. Perhaps it is time to revive that proposal.
>
>
> If I understand correctly, the implication of this would be that change
> requests would need to be made public before implementation and there would
> some period of time in which potential objectors could file the
> injunction.  Not suggesting I support or don't support this idea, just
> making the observations to be sure I understand what you're suggesting.
>
>
> Yes, transparency before publication would be needed. But presumably a
> delay to allow objection would not be needed for routine
> requested-by-the-registry changes which are the bulk of changes and likely
> the most time-sensitive ones.
>
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
> P.S. No, I do not get paid by the word, just trying to be clear… (:))
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cwg-dtf mailing list
> cwg-dtf at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-dtf
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-dtf/attachments/20150413/1af159cc/attachment.html>