[CWG-Stewardship] Accountability measures required by CWG Proposal(s)

[David Conrad]

Chuck,

> 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 isn¹t
> involved in that decision.   See my comments in the Google Doc that Avri
> initiated.

Right.  However, the area I was asking about was the implication of:

"There may also be a need for an injunction-like mechanism to defer the
change in question during the appeal process."

The current process does not have a mechanism by which anyone other than the
requester, ICANN, NTIA, and Verisign can "defer the change" (or even know it
is in process) once lodged.  More generically, the statement:

"An independent review panel must be set up to deal with contested changes
to the Root Zone or its WHOIS Database."

implies a significant change to the way the IANA Names function is
performed.  Today, if a change lodged with the IANA Names function is
contested, IANA staff will not move forward with the change and instead will
request the contesting parties come to a consensus on the change.  While not
wanting to be again accused of trying to influence outcomes, I'll admit I
don't think changing this policy (which has been in place since Postel days)
would be prudent.

Regards,
-drc



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150116/f2231d9e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150116/f2231d9e/smime.p7s>