[CCWG-ACCT] Answers to some common questions being encountered by the ICANN staff

[Nigel Roberts]

For the second time in a week or so, I will say

"I couldn't disagree more".

The argument that just because something bad hasn't happened yet because 
of a defect is fallacious.

Donald Trump hasn't started any wars yet, so he'd make a better 
President, right?

The .INT is issue is important, though the registry itself is entirely 
unimportant (it was created simply to enable the .NATO TLD to be removed 
from the root).

There's actually no reason .INT couldn't be opened up, in the same way 
that .NET was.

But the whole point is modern standards of accountability, particularly 
as set out in 2000 in the ECHR case of McGonnell versus the United 
Kingdom.  (The rule of 'apparent bias').

Or do either of you think that case was wrongly decided?

On 16/09/16 07:27, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
> Agree with Martin.
>
> CW
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2016, at 23:48, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk
> <mailto:Martin.Boyle at nominet.uk>> wrote:
>
>> Andrew is perfectly correct and so, in a way, are you, Nigel.  I would
>> agree that it is not *normally* for ICANN to run a TLD, but .int is an
>> unusual TLD.
>>
>> I think that the current contract includes .int as one of the IANA
>> functions.  In preparing the CWG proposal we agreed that any change
>> (or hiving off of .int) needed to follow due process and any action to
>> change this should be decided post transition.  Few saw it as a
>> priority and most recognised that there was little agreement for
>> dealing with this as part of the transition.
>>
>> I would note that .int is seen by many as a highly political registry:
>>  making a decision will not be easy.
>>
>> And I don't see your poacher-gamekeeper argument.  Given ICANN has
>> been managing the domain against a policy defined elsewhere (an RFC)
>> for many years, are there examples of their management of the TLD that
>> have affected their decisions on other of the IANA functions or
>> vice-versa?
>>
>>
>> Martin Boyle
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> *nominet.uk* <http://nominet.uk/>**DD: +44 (0)1865 332251
>> <tel:+44%20%280%291865%20332251>
>> Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, OX4 4DQ, United Kingdom
>>
>>
>> On 14 Sep 2016, at 16:13, Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
>> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> I couldn't disagree more.
>>>
>>> In its role as IANA it should be not be both poacher and gamekeeper.
>>>
>>> Yet in its role as IANA *AND* the regsitry operator of .INT that is
>>> what it does.
>>>
>>> It needs to divest itself of running a registry.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/09/16 14:50, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 02:14:40PM +0100, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>>>>> And ICANN should not run a registry either. (It does.)
>>>>
>>>> Actually, in its job as IANA, ICANN's whole job is to run registries.
>>>> Of course, that's supposed to go to PTI once this is over, but it's
>>>> not true that today ICANN "should not" run a registry.
>>>>
>>>> A
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>