[discuss] Options for root zone (was Re: Interesting article)

Ian Peter ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Fri Jan 17 20:29:36 UTC 2014


maybe I wasn't clear.

Why is an external audit function necessary at all in this particular 
process? IMHO it is completely unnecessary and can be removed in a reform of 
internal procedures.

I think history shows the external audit function on every step in this 
particular process serves no useful purpose and can be scrapped. But if you 
can give me a good example of where this has ever played a useful role I 
would be interested to hear. I think good consultative internal processes 
are all that is necessary.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Milton L Mueller
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 7:10 AM
To: 'Ian Peter' ; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: RE: [discuss] Options for root zone (was Re: Interesting article)


-----Original Message-----
>On (1) - Milton I share your concerns re GAC - but I think the reality
>might be that the path of least resistance towards changes from the
>current unilateral control situation here might be an agreed role for
>GAC as part of internal process of ICANN.

GAC already has an agreed role as part of the internal process of ICANN. 
Whether you agree with me that it is completely dysfunctional or not, it is 
all there in black and white in the bylaws.

What we DON'T need in this context is any hint, or any whiff or whisper of a 
hint, that links the current NTIA DoC role in administering the IANA 
contract with the GAC. That confuses two completely different functions: 
policy development advice and the auditing of root zone file changes. I 
think we can all agree that the function of auditing the accuracy and 
procedural correctness of root zone changes should not be mixed up with in 
the slightest with some kind of policy override function. Yet if you link 
that function to the GAC - in any way - I guarantee you that RZF change 
audits will become levers for overriding internal policy decisions. 

More information about the discuss mailing list