[Internal-cg] ICG FAQ ..
alissa at cooperw.in
Tue Sep 30 22:20:52 UTC 2014
On 9/30/14, 2:43 PM, "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
>I have two concerns.
>Q4: I do not like defining IANA is this way. It makes it seem that IANA
>would not exist if not for the contract. Clearly, we want it to continue
>when the contract goes away, and some IANA functions are completely
>outside the contract. For example, the IANA role in the Timezone
>Database is completely outside the contract. I realize the definition
>includes "other" functions, but think we want to avoid using the contract
>as a means of defining IANA.
Perhaps it would make more sense for Q4/A4 to be re-worded along the
"Q4: Which aspects of IANA are to be covered in the stewardship transition?
A4: The transition addresses the stewardship of IANA as the administrator
of registries containing Internet protocol parameters, Internet numbering
resources, and the DNS root zone. Activities unrelated to stewardship (for
example, policy development processes) or unrelated to the aforementioned
functions (for example, the administration of the Timezone Database) are
not the focus of the transition.”
>Q14: If the ICANN community comes to consensus on a plan that includes
>accountability mechanisms, who is the ICG to "conduct an analysis of
>their overall implications for ICANN accountability?" I have a real
>problem saying that ICG will do this. The ICANN community needs to say
>whether the accountability mechanisms are sufficient, not the ICG.
>Making sure there are not gaps between the proposals is a different
>matter, but that is not what the current text says.
>Internal-cg mailing list
>Internal-cg at icann.org
More information about the Internal-cg