[CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities

[Burr, Becky]

See question re your last point?

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz> / www.neustar.biz

From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>>
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2014 at 12:09 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com<mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com>>
Cc: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] [IANA-issues] Fwd: Names Community vs the other two communities



From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]

Rather than starting with legal constructs, let’s begin by talking about what we need to accomplish requisite accountability.

MM: Agree 100%.

To me, we need some independent committee, council, unincorporated association, or representative group to have a contract with ICANN/IANA for performing IANA functions consistent with SLA’s to be negotiated and documented.  We need this entity, presumably representative of IANA service consumers, to have recourse if the SLA’s are not met.

MM: Agree here too.

If this is correct, then we can look at what kind of legal entity we need for the “SLA Council.”  Seems to me that the core of this group would be registry operators, perhaps with representation from other stakeholders like registstrars, registrants, etc.

MM: This is exactly what IGP proposed.

Could be stand alone or perhaps housed in ISOC or the IETF?

MM: Stand alone seems cleaner to me. The names part of the problem is so different from protocols that it makes no sense to put it in IETF or ISOC, and (though I cannot speak for them) I think IETF would not want to deal with the political and economic externalities of the association.  I have no problem with that approach.

Second, we need a mechanism that ensure recourse and redress for a registry that is wrongfully revoked, delegated, etc.  That mechanism can be provided to all through the ICANN bylaws, e.g., as an independent review.

MM: We also need protections against registries somehow abusing their contractual influence over IANA to act in ways that prevent competition or protect incumbents

Isn’t this addressed through ICANN policy development and accountability mechanisms?  In other words, IANA implements ICANN policy with respect to names in accordance with IANA user negotiated SLAs.  If IANA does something that is no consistent with ICANN policy, ICANN is accountable through whatever mechanisms we come up with in the accountability track.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20141023/302e0dca/attachment.html>