[CPWG] ICANN position on the Facebook outage

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear Bill,

I think we've established that how Facebook is running its networks is 
not ICANN's problem, but ICANN should make this clear in some form of 
blog or public posting so as to decline responsibility of the DNS 
infrastructure in this incident. You'll be surprised how many ignorant 
decision makers might be swayed by arguments that such incidents prove 
that Governments should be running the "critical resources".
ICANN's business is limited to making sure that TLDs are run in a 
reliable way and there are requirements in ICANN's contracts with gTLD 
operators. But even when it comes to ccTLDS, ICANN's ability to mandate 
anything is severely limited, if at all impossible. One cannot repeat 
this enough.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 10/10/2021 01:21, Bill Jouris via CPWG wrote:
> Say rather that an organisation such as Facebook is should have a 
> thorough design of redundancy. But, on the evidence, did not.  Perhaps 
> some redundancy designed in.  But thorough, it evidently was not.
>
> That said, it isn't clear that their shortcomings are ICANN's 
> problem.  Or even ICANN's business. Any node can go down, and so no 
> longer be reachable.  It's not even particularly unusual.  This was 
> more widespread than most, but no different in essence.  And no more 
> in need of an ICANN response.
>
> Bill Jouris
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
> <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
>
>     On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:48 PM, sivasubramanian muthusamy via CPWG
>     <cpwg at icann.org> wrote:
>     _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20211010/59210669/attachment.html>