[CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2: draft 5.1

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Jan 1 08:36:36 UTC 2015 

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 30 Dec 2014 15:12, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>  I  ALSO think Avri is right – the solution set is binary.  If the
Board/ICANN will accept in WS1  a proposl for a strong contractual boundary
on what they may do along with an external mechanism that can be invoked by
the community to police that boundary, then most of the other
accountability can be in WS2.
>
>
>
>  COMMENT FROM KAVOUSS
>
> This has exactly been proposed by CWG in their outcome draft to which the
Board disagreed in its recent publication for public comments and I have
surprised to read that and thus asked to discuss that  matter in the agenda
of this evening ,30 December CALL
>
> But my current understanding is that the Board/ICANN will not accept such
a proposal – indeed when I last spoke of it to a Board member, I was told
it was “unnecessary.”
>
> COMMENT FROM KAVOUSS
>
> I do not understand why the Board will not accept that .They have told in
their views for public comment that " it is duplication of work " does it
means that any mechanism to properly address the replacement of NTIA for
IANA functions are duplication of work?
>
I would not make a general conclusion as above. Maybe you should have a
second look at the current CWG proposal to really determine whether it's
really a mechanism that improves ICANN Accountability.

> Does it mean that if no replacement is proposed and the function trusted
to ICANN without a clear responsibility and transparaency in an
acciountable manner it is not duplication ?
>
I also don't think anyone wants ICANN to be unaccountable, it's just the
approach that differs. There definitely has to be a replacement and such
replacement would be more effective and meet NTIA requirement if the
multistakeholder community is further empowered.

> Are we exchanging  NTIA by ICANN ?
> Under the current practice, at least ICANN is accountable to NTIA .
> After the transition ICANN WOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE TO WHICH ENTITY?
>
The  multistakeholder community which is the NTIA requirement

> This is a core issue and must be fully examined and resolved
>
+1

Regards

> Kavouss
>
>
>
> 2014-12-30 14:16 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> Regarding your last below re: the seeking of consensus before spending
on broadband, I think we have a fundamental disagreement.  Even if the
entire community were to want to do that, ICANN would be the wrong
mechanism for achieving that goal -- for much the same reason that we don't
ask a Department of Education to manage the health care system in a
country.  Both are important "good governance" functions but for reasons of
expertise, focus and management we don't accept that.  For that reason I
see it as essential to prevent as far as is practicable ICANN from straying
beyond the IANA mission.  "Even the best intentions oft lead men astray."
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> **NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
>> 509 C St. NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>>
>> Paul Rosenzweig
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>> Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
>> Link to my PGP Key
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:17 AM
>> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] CCWG-Accountability work team 2:
draft 5.1
>>
>> Hello Paul,
>>
>>
>> >>  I think Avri is exactly right – the solution set is binary.  If the
>> >> Board/ICANN will accept in WS1 a proposl for a strong contractual
boundary on what they may do along with an external mechanism that can be
invoked by the community to police that boundary, then most of the other
accountability can be in WS2.  But my current understanding is that the
Board/ICANN will not accept such a proposal – indeed when I last spoke of
it to a Board member, I was told it was “unnecessary.”
>>
>>
>> I don’t think you should make that assumption yet.     There is a
difference between the Board’s views in forming a new entity (Contract
Co.)  to replace the NTIA, and the aboard agreeing to terms in contracts
with the users of the IANA functions that may limit what it can do.
There are already requirements on ICANN in the gTLD registry agreement for
example:
>>
>> From:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.htm
>>
>> "Article 3 "COVENANTS OF ICANN"
>>
>>  ICANN covenants and agrees with Registry Operator as follows:
>>
>>       3.1           Open and Transparent. Consistent with ICANN’s
expressed mission and core values, ICANN shall operate in an open and
transparent manner.
>>
>>       3.2           Equitable Treatment.  ICANN shall not apply
standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or
inequitably and shall not single out Registry Operator for disparate
treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause.
>>
>>       3.3           TLD Nameservers.  ICANN will use commercially
reasonable efforts to ensure that any changes to the TLD nameserver
designations submitted to ICANN by Registry Operator (in a format and with
required technical elements specified by ICANN at
http://www.iana.org/domains/root/ will be implemented by ICANN within seven
(7) calendar days or as promptly as feasible following technical
verifications.
>>
>>       3.4           Root-zone Information Publication.  ICANN’s
publication of root-zone contact information for the TLD will include
Registry Operator and its administrative and technical contacts.  Any
request to modify the contact information for the Registry Operator must be
made in the format specified from time to time by ICANN at
http://www.iana.org/domains/root/.
>>
>>       3.5           Authoritative Root Database.  To the extent that
ICANN is authorized to set policy with regard to an authoritative root
server system (the “Authoritative Root Server System”), ICANN shall use
commercially reasonable efforts to (a) ensure that the authoritative root
will point to the top-level domain nameservers designated by Registry
Operator for the TLD, (b) maintain a stable, secure, and authoritative
publicly available database of relevant information about the TLD, in
accordance with ICANN publicly available policies and procedures, and (c)
coordinate the Authoritative Root Server System so that it is operated and
maintained in a stable and secure manner; provided, that ICANN shall not be
in breach of this Agreement and ICANN shall have no liability in the event
that any third party (including any governmental entity or internet service
provider) blocks or restricts access to the TLD in any jurisdiction."
>>
>> As a result of recommendations from this working group - additional text
could be  made part of the standard gTLD registry and registrar agreements.
>>
>>
>> >>  And we have seen that ICANN sometimes has ambitions to do more than
IANA – witness the proposal to spend money on broadband expansion.
>>
>> Yes - I believe that statement was a possible area of spending noted by
the CEO.   I note however that it is  not part of any approved budget, and
the Board would be seeking a consensus of the ICANN community before it
authorised such expenditure from any auction proceeds.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150101/206fef20/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list