[discuss] Transparency and Accountability vis-à-vis ICANN and the IANA functions

Sun Mar 30 19:46:05 UTC 2014

On 31/03/2014 07:58, Dr. Ben Fuller wrote:
> George,
> 
> These are good points. I think there is a need to separate
> ICANN's (and its successor) functions. First, there is the
> technical IANA function that must follow its own protocols
> with regard to changes in the root zone. 

Please note that changes to the root zone are a very small and
technically simple aspect of IANA's technical work. Most of its
work is concerned with hundreds of other protocol parameters.

> Milton Meuller has
> been posting a lot about this and he probably has some
> insights into this side of the process. 

Actually, the large majority of IANA's technical work is
performed on behalf of the IETF and is overseen by the IAB.
TLD policy is an exception, and so is IP address assignment
policy, whose constituency is the set of RIRs.

> Second, ICANN has a
> number of associated constituencies (GAC, CNSO, ccNSO, ALAC,
> etc.) that have a direct interest in DNS operations.

I have the impression that most of those are more interested in
TLD policy than in DNS (including DNSSEC) operations. The root
server operators and ISPs in general care about DNS operations.
In any case, TLD policy needs to be firmly separated from
DNS(SEC) operations.

> Third,
> there are, or may be in the future, ad hoc or long standing
> groups that have a temporary or transient need to engage with
> ICANN, or its successor, over specifically defined issues. It
> might be good here to think of the "Onion Skin" perspective
> in the Strategic Engagement Report.

Certainly IANA is free, under its agreement with the IETF and
IAB, to act for other organisations looking for a protocol
parameter registry service. Normally, the rules for each
individual registry need to define how registrants interact with
the registrar.

> In each of the above it will be necessary to define
> "accountability" and "transparency." While there may be cross
> cutting principles, each will require a specific set of
> deliverables for how accountability and transparency are
> defined, measured and resolved.
> 
> Perhaps it will be good to look at some core principles that
> will apply everywhere, then focus on the onion skin and look
> at those that may apply at the different levels.

For the large majority of the registries handled by IANA (i.e.
the IETF protocol parameter registries) this has been done, and
is covered by the March 2000 MoU, and subsequent RFCs and a
service level agreement. We don't need to repeat that work.

It seems to me that it's pretty clear what the constituencies
are. The guidelines for accountability certainly exist for most
of IANA's work. I have kept my nose intentionally out of the
details of TLD policy, DNS(SEC) operations and RIR address
assignment policy - if those constituencies haven't already
written down their accountability guidelines, it would certainly
be a good idea. But let's not blow it up into a revolution, or
even a 'transition' - it's just a logical next step.

    Brian

> Best,
> 
> Ben
> 
> 
> On Mar 28, 2014, at 3:59 PM, George Sadowsky
> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> HERE ARE SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT
>> 
>> What definition of the word ‘accountability’ best fits how
>> we believe ICANN’s acceptability should be judged and
>> measured, either for itself only, or for its
>> post-transition stewardship of the IANA functions, or both?
>> 
>> 
>> In each case, specifically to WHOM would ICANN be
>> accountable, and if the target of accountability is
>> distributed, how would it be distributed?  In other words,
>> if ‘A' is ICANN, who is ‘B’ in the above definition in red?
>> 
>> 
>> In each case, specifically for WHAT would ICANN be
>> accountable?  How can the degree of accountability be
>> measured, or is that not directly relevant?  In the context
>> of the definition in red above, what are the set of
>> 'actions and decisions' for which ICANN is accountable?
>> 
>> If we could get general agreement on the responses to the
>> above questions, it might be possible to use this approach
>> for an initial evaluation of any transition alternatives
>> that are proposed.
>> 
>> MORE
>> 
>> This discussion does not include the issue of actions that
>> are taken when accountability is found to be lacking.
>> That’s an equally important question that we also need to
>> take up, but let’s see if we can answer this one first.
>> 
>> 
>> I would like it if the above subject would stimulate some
>> discussion.
>> 
>> Thanks for reading,
>> 
>> George
>> 
>> 
>> (Much thanks to John Curran, Bill Graham, Bruce Tonkin,
>> Suzanne Woolf and Jonathan Zuck, who had the insights that
>> led to some of the above ideas)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ discuss
>> mailing list discuss at 1net.org 
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> ********************************************** Dr. Ben Fuller
>  +264-61-224470  (O)    +264-88-63-68-05 (F) ben at fuller.na
> http://www.fuller.na skype: drbenfuller 
> **********************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ discuss
> mailing list discuss at 1net.org 
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 