[Area 2] Fwd: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure

Wed Jan 28 21:05:25 UTC 2015

Dear All,
This is one option . We need to llok at other options
At anyrate, the apportionment of representation is an important issue.
There is no equal footing between SO ,AC  as some wouls have more qwider
representation which should be respected.
Regards
Kavouss
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Date: 2015-01-28 20:58 GMT+01:00
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure
To: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
accountability-cross-community at icann.org>

 Eric,

To be clear, no one has ever said that, “…only registries can provide the
necessary oversight of the Board as it relates to the continued function of
the Root Zone Management.” Where did you get that?

In order for any accountability structure to be meaningful and acceptable,
it should represent all members of the community and there should be
appropriate balance among all community participants and interests.

As an employee of a gTLD Registry and Chair of the GNSO Registries
Stakeholder Group, I can state definitively that we have a strong interest
in ICANN’s accountability to us and to the rest of the community.

I find your suggestion that registries might not have a place in a possible
cross-community membership model odd, to say the least.

Regards,

Keith

*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Eric
Brunner-Williams
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:51 PM
*To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] got some lawyerly answers on membership structure

On 1/28/15 8:50 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:

If a ccTLD manager is not a member of the ccNSO, is paying no fees to ICANN
and is not bound by ccNSO policy, please help me understand how they are
impacted and why they would care about the ICANN Board's accountability
mechanisms to its community. I fully understand why every TLD registry
cares about the IANA functions and changes to the root zone file, but our
issue of greater ICANN Accountability is a broader discussion than the
IANA-specific concerns and accountability mechanisms currently being
addressed via the CWG Transition.

It is not so very long ago that a (previous) Executive and (previous) Board
made changes requested by delegees of iso3166 code points conditional upon
a form of agreement. The policy pursued by that Executive and that Board
were not subject to substantive community review (notice and comment) prior
to being implemented, with the accountability issue I hope many, not just
the directly concerned, still recall.

Additionally, the interests of parties (of any type) need not encompass the
union of all interests of all parties in the mechanisms and policies
relating to accountability.

The pursuit of the narrow self-interest of a hypothetical ccTLD, or gTLD,
delegee or contractual party, through its operator, should not, by itself,
remove a party pursuing its narrow self-interest from what ever may
eventually be a body of "members". Were it so, the removed would be at
least some of those the USG observed in the AOC which constitute " a group
of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than
Internet users generally."

However, given the general awareness that the continued function of the
Root Zone Management (RZM) partners is of fundamental importance, and the
limited interest _as_delegees_or_contractees_ in issues other than the
continued function of the Root Zone Management (RZM) partners, it seems
unnecessary to encumber the problem of accountability-via-membership
(already quite difficult if not intractable, in my opinion) with notions
that delegees and contractees, as delegees or contractees, contribute an
interest absent but for their status as "members", whether represented en
toto, or as self-organized aggregates, or by lottery.

In simple terms, why registries-as-members at all? Does anyone believe only
registries can provide the necessary oversight of the Board as it relates
to the continued function of the Root Zone Management?

I think that the function of the Board is general oversight of the
registries, arising from its technical coordination of unique endpoint
identifiers delegated authority, and contractual oversight arising from its
delegated contracting authority, so the assumption that registries have a
necessary place in a hypothetical membership model is one that should be
examined carefully for self-interest and self-dealing, as well as for
necessity and utility.

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/ccwg-accountability2/attachments/20150128/41b85e55/attachment.html>