[discuss] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us
Sun Aug 31 22:05:07 UTC 2014
The antecedent to “family” in my note was "a global family of technical and operational folks who make the DNS name resolution system work.” Surely that does not need elaboration in this forum.
“Cooperation” means aligning the operation of the large and globally distributed hierarchy of root and name servers with updates received from IANA. For years there has been speculation about “what would happen” if by some odd chance IANA, for whatever reason, published a change that a large fraction of the people involved in name resolution disagreed with. I won’t indulge in my own speculation except to comment that the system works as well as it does because of the network of trust established over many years between and among the individuals involved.
It is very clear from this forum and others of recent vintage that “best interests” is subject to varying definitions and interpretations. One of the latest IGF goals is to attempt to reduce code words like “best interests” to more substantive reality. I endorse that effort. In the context of my note, “best interests” meant as perceived by the name resolution family of individuals.
On Aug 31, 2014, at 9:52 AM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike, perhaps you could go into more detail on this statement...
> "As (it) is assuming that the greater “family” would cooperate with an IANA change they viewed as not in the best interests of the Internet."
> For example giving some further definition of who/what is meant by the "greater (Internet?) family", "cooperation" (or not?) with an IANA change, and "best interests of the Internet".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Mike Roberts
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 9:37 AM
> To: Jordan Carter
> Cc: isoc-advisory-council at elists.isoc.org; 1Net List; ig at aptld.org; Ianaxfer at Elists. Isoc. Org; ccnso-igrg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
> I agree with Bill’s comments.
> I would also point out that focusing on IANA is like looking at an iceberg. IANA, meaning the functions its staff carry out, is part of a global family of technical and operational folks who make the DNS name resolution system work. Assuming that a change in the chain of command/accountability for IANA will solve some perceivecd problem or set of problems is exceedingly short sighted. As is assuming that the greater “family” would cooperate with an IANA change they viewed as not in the best interests of the Internet.
> - Mike
> On Aug 31, 2014, at 8:00 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> > Dear all
> > Apologies for cross-posting...
> > I am seeking some community feedback as part of prepping for the
> > workshop on ICANN accountability scheduled for Wednesday 9am here at
> > #igf2014.
> > The particular questions I have, two, are:
> > 1. Is ICANN's accountability a subject for the whole Internet
> > community to resolve, or (as suggested by ICANN, in distinction from
> > the iana stewardship transition) an internal ICANN community matter?
> > 2. Can *internal* accountability arrangements, of whatever sort, ever
> > be adequate for an entity like ICANN that is intended (at least it
> > looks like that is ICANN's intention) to be responsible for the
> > stewardship of the iana functions?
> > My view is that for the first, the clear answer is the broader
> > community; for the second, most of the discussions in the ICANN
> > community to date have been focused on internal arrangements except
> > for the weird ban on discussion internal structural accountability
> > measures.
> > I'd value any discussion on these to help inform the panel's work on Wednesday.
> > Thanks,
> > Jordan
> > Ps - InternetNZ is the designated manager of the .nz ccTLD; it has a
> > wider cause (a better world through a better Internet (which is an
> > open and uncaptured Internet)) and so is in an interesting situation
> > straddling parts of the Internet's technical and civil society
> > communities.
> > PPS - The session description is as follows:
> > Discussion of how accountability goals are achieved at ICANN under its
> > multi-stakeholder governance processes. To whom is ICANN accountable
> > and what are the mechanisms for ensuring that accountability is
> > adequate? In what way do these mechanisms need strengthening or
> > further improvements, particularly in light of NTIA's announcement to
> > transition out its current role? How do checks and balances on power,
> > such as structural separation of key DNS operations encourage
> > accountability? How have ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments and the
> > Accountability and Transparency Review Team fostered (or undermined)
> > accountability goals at ICANN? What lessens were learned from the AoC
> > and ATRT processes on achieving accountability under a
> > multi-stakeholder governance regime? What is the role of ICANN's
> > Ombudsman Office in achieving accountability for the institution?
> > --
> > Jordan Carter
> > Chief Executive, InternetNZ
> > +64 21 442 649
> > twitter.com/jordantcarter
> > 'Hope is the dream of a person awake' -- French proverb
> > _______________________________________________
> > discuss mailing list
> > discuss at 1net.org
> > http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss