[CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)
cgomes at verisign.com
Thu Jan 15 19:19:22 UTC 2015
In the cases of gTLDs, I think an appeals mechanism regarding delegations, re-delegations or root zone Whois changes could be handled outside of the certification process if there is one. For example, in the case of gTLDs, the decision to delegate a gTLD is made before IANA gets involved and IANA isn’t involved in that decision. See my comments in the Google Doc that Avri initiated.
From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:56 PM
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: CWG Mailing List
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)
A couple of questions that are relevant to implementation (the bits I care about):
2. Independent certification for delegation and re-delegation requests
This would be a replacement for the authorization function for all changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database currently performed by the NTIA. The replacement mechanism would have gTLD requests for delegations and re-delegations authorized by an independent third party and its decision on these matters would be binding on ICANN/IANA.
As documented by NTIA at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntias_role_root_zone_management_12162014.pdf, the following is considered during "authorization":
• Did ICANN follow the change notification process correctly?
• Transmitted securely?
• Includes the standard set of information (i.e., summary of requested changes)?
• Self-certification from ICANN that processes followed?
• Request for authorization?
Is the idea that the "independent third party" would consider the same set of information and utilize the same mechanisms currently used by NTIA?
3. Independent Appeals Panel
An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested changes to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database. Although discussions are still ongoing as to the specifics of such a proposal, it is generally agreed that the decisions of such a panel would be binding. There may also be a need for an injunction-like mechanism to defer the change in question during the appeal process.
The implication of the last sentence is that there would be the introduction of some sort of notification period during root change processing in which interested parties could file an injunction/appeal. As this would be new, some issues to consider: How is that notification sent out? How long is that period? Who would have standing to file an injunction/appeal? How is that injunction request/appeal submitted? What changes would be subject to injunction, e.g., would 'emergency changes' be subject to this notification period and/or injunction-like mechanism?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CWG-Stewardship