[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 6 and a way forward to include compromise text suggested by the Board

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sun Feb 7 00:04:32 UTC 2016

I would point out that SSAC is a Chartering Organization of the CCWg, with
two appointed Members, who have been following our discussions and
contributed where they felt appropriate.  I would also point out that
virtually anyone can join the CCWG as a participant at any time, and
participate generally or specifically (on a particular effort).  As such,
the current structure can easily accommodate new or increased participation
by SSAC or RSSAC, with regard to HR or any other part of WS2.


On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams <
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

> Tijani,
> I'll respond to only one item in the WS2 issue set -- human rights.
> In my view, the SSAC and RSSAC each, for their own reasons, reasonably
> chose to have little direct involvement with the core ccwg-acct task,
> improving some aspects of the Corporation's means of accountability.
> Also, in my view, some who have contributed to the discussion of human
> rights have framed the issue as one of free-speech and/or open-ness.
> A framing of human rights limited to web sites (the resolved resources),
> or their names (the referant to be resolved) or their authors (the hoary
> old whois:43 problem), could exist unchanged were we to still be using
> hosttables to publish name-to-resource mappings. Restated, what the IANA
> Function comprises is not met by merely making policy w.r.t. speech or
> access, even when one considers only the naming infrastructure. We have
> touched on this through the Board's expression of support, as yet to be
> implemented successfully, of geographic and economic diversity in the
> Corporation's selection of contracted parties, also through the Board's
> more successfully implemented expression of support for referants (names)
> in languages which are not usually written in the Latin Script.
> You may have observed that the current Chair of the IAB and I have
> different
> views on what possible motivations lead to the statement by the Corporation
> that resolution of the .eg namespace would not fail in the then-forseeable
> future after all prefixes for Egyptian access networks were withdrawn.
> You may not have observed that some have argued that IPv6 alloctions be
> distributed by national sub-allocators, unlike IPv4 allocations, which are
> mde by regional sub-allocators -- the five RIRs which make up both the NRO
> and the ASO. The mechanism of national sub-allocation would present
> barriers
> to operators seeking to serve diaspora populations -- Roms in Europe,
> Arabic
> speakers in Europe, to take two well-known examples.
> > If there is a reason for breaking the CCWG charter and taking some parts
> > of WS 2 tasks out of the CCWG-accountability, I would like to know it.
> I suggest that the decisions of SSAC and RSSAC, not to take an active
> interest in improvements to corporate accountability, reasonable at the
> time, can be revisited in the narrower context of identifying those
> realized, and latent means of advancing human rights, within the core
> functions of the IANA Functions contractor.
> As I've mentioned, alternate point of view are available, and of course
> I've nothing to do with either the SSAC or the RSSAC, or any other Bylaws
> entity.
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> Eugene, Oregon
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160206/d318c179/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list