[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Tue Feb 18 09:58:29 UTC 2014

All,

The key word here is accountability. How do we create a structure that is accountable to the largest number of stakeholders and interested parties? To do this we need to look at different tracks of accountability and how they are structured. One track is the Board of the new institution (or transformed ICANN), one will be with the different stakeholders and how they are linked to decision making processes, another is how do we insure that changes to the root are properly implemented. There may be more. 

Brian, Ian and Marilyn among others both before and after this post begin an examination of some of these issues. Perhaps a useful exercise will be to delineate the areas of accountability that are of concern by people on this list and discuss each in its own thread.

Ben

On Feb 17, 2014, at 3:22 PM, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
> 
> If we want to move forward from Ian Peter’s conclusion below, the accountability framework for ICANN becomes crucial, which is why I quoted earlier from Jovan’s two diplomacy-based options.  ICANN can internalize IANA without a problem, but then how is ICANN made accountable in a manner that both leaves the degrees of freedom it needs to operate effectively and ensures effective global oversight over its activities?
> 
> George
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> On Feb 17, 2014, at 12:36 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> Much though this is interesting I wonder if it is a priority to work on this amount of detail at this point of time?
>> 
>> If we are to achieve something through 1net and the presence here of many stakeholder groups, I think we will have to concentrate on high level statement of directions, some high level principles, and an agreed message that is also likely to be broadly supported by governmental stakeholders. This is not the forum for detailed technical process evolution.
>> 
>> I think that statement that we need would be along the lines of a recommendation that the previous IANA processes be internalised within ICANN.  ICANN (not 1net, or it would never get done) would be asked to come up with a set of procedures and processes in consultation with stakeholders.
>> 
>> I don't think any of the processes are rocket science. They are  no more difficult than the sorts of processes that banks, hospitals, and many businesses manage on a daily basis, with high levels of  checks and balances to ensure integrity and security of outputs. It's not going to be difficult to write such processes once there is a clear direction.
>> 
>> The reasons why this is "problem no 1" are not technical. They are political, in that the current antiquated arrangements seeing a unilateral authorisation role for USA is unacceptable to almost all stakeholders and has to be replaced. A multilateral solution (such as ITU management) is also unacceptable to a number of key stakeholders. There we are left with no choice but to internalise the previous IANA processes within ICANN - definitely the preferred direction in discussions here thus far -or face the consequences of multiple roots and a fragmented internet. We really do have to act on this and devote our energies towards a political solution which I believe is now achievable.
>> 
>> It's a multistakeholder solution, which is the buzzword for EU, USA, many other governments, and 1net. If we can't do this we might as well throw multistakeholder out the window.
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker
>> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 12:59 PM
>> To: Keith Davidson
>> Cc: discuss at 1net.org
>> Subject: Re: [discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"
>> 
>> The new ccTLD path applied only to existing countries and territories.  I think Oceania would have to get an entry in ISO 3166-1 first.
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 16, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Keith Davidson <keith at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 17/02/2014 2:47 p.m., Steve Crocker wrote:
>>>>> Actually the discussion does raise some interesting aspects, particularly in the new gTLD environment. There are a good many new gTLDs that are more aligned in principles to ccTLDs than to the legacy gTLDs - especially country, city and territory names, and also some local non-ASCII language gTLDs. Sovereign rights issues arise somewhat similarly as they do to ccTLDs, as do serving the local Internet community. The US Government "control" via the IANA contract should arguably be trumped by the greater rights of sovereignty and servicing the local community.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wonder if ICANN would give any consideration to applications made for gTLDs under the auspices of RFC1591, rather than the new gTLD processes that have evolved since ICANN was created? Wouldn't there be greater vibrancy and diversity under the more simple framework created by RFC1591? Is ICANNs role to generate stock standard outputs, or to encourage real diversity?
>>>> 
>>>> Several years ago I tried to stimulate some discussion along a similar line.  The political/contractual distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs turned out to be so dominant that it was impossible to draw the lines any other way.
>>>> 
>>>> I think the only way to accomplish what you have in mind is to to work within the ICANN framework to bring RFC 1591 ideas into to the GNSO policy framework.  I have no idea whether this might be feasible.
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile, additional ccTLDs have been created for IDN-ccTLDs.  That's probably not exactly what you have in mind, but it touches on your idea.
>>> 
>>> Agreed, that the IDN ccTLDs created on the fasttrack were subject to the RFC1591 requirements only, considerably simpler / cheaper / quicker than the ICANN gTLD process. Which does prove that ICANN can accept new non-ISO-3166 ccTLD applications (and RFC1591 determined that the ISO-3166 list was the one to be used for delegations of ccTLDs). Which leads the way to the interesting possibility that aspiring gTLDs could use RFC1591 instead of the ICANN gTLD process - which might be relevant to territories, regions or sub-regions that are not recognised on ISO-3166. For example, the Oceania region might apply for .oceania...
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Keith
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

________________
Dr Ben fuller
ben at fuller.na
http://www.fuller.na