[CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion

Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Fri Jan 8 18:56:30 UTC 2016


> is it consistent with and reasonably necessary to ensure
> the stability and security of the DNS?

If stability and security (let us address the "of what" separately) exhaust
the requirements, then past actions, e.g., "shared access" to some existing
registries and the associated namespaces (circa 1999), and "new gTLDs" and
the associated namespaces (circa 2001, 2005, and 2013), all of which served
to increase the number of actors with {read,write,modify} access to the data
which supports the DNS, were not necessary.

I'm indirectly revisiting my prior point that the pattern of behavior of
the early adopters, from Kleinrock's published works -- which incorporates
work that lead to the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, and so the
behavior of the USG, and later early adopters, to ICANN under its latest
Board, and its latest contract with the USG, has been to provide access to
subsequent adopters.

>From this pattern of behavior, for which similar work in the UK academic
community, and elsewhere, existed contemporaniously, which I trust we're not
now deciding is outside the mission and/or scope of the Corporation, we can
infer the existance of a public interest, held by several governments and
research academic institutions, in extending access to the benefits of this
particular stable mechanism of associating referants and resources -- an
interest apparently shared by a sufficiently large body of end users of this
system to make the attributive adjective "global" not nonsensical.

I suggest that the word "accessibility" or some cognate be added to the usual
mantra of "security and stability", so we not shut the door on those who
would like to use this system. Thank you for your patience reading this.

Obviously, as there was public comment opposed to the Applicant Support
Working Group's initial and final recommendations, prepared in response to a
prior Board's call to form a cross community working group to consider how
to assist 2013-round new gTLD applicants meeting some diversity goal, it is
not impossible that its author(s) now argue that efforts to improve the
accessibility of benefits made possible by the ongoing function of the
Corporation fall outside the mission and/or scope of the Corporation.

That the initial implementation of the ASWG's recommendations did not
identify any applicant for "support" merely showed that the attempt to
articulate a public interes must be improved upon, not proof that no public
interest existed, as another CCWG-ACCT contributor observed.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list