[discuss] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Tue Sep 2 08:28:42 UTC 2014
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> > On the substance: I agree with you that it's like an iceberg. But one
> > of the facts on the ground is that two of the three customer groups of
> > the IANA functions have elegant and well-considered external policy
> > decision processes.
> > Among the third customer group, the naming folks, we have the country
> > code names. I posit that this is the most politically (in the big P,
> > governments are interested sense) part of the role, and we are at the
> > most mercy of having decent accountability arrangements in place with
> > the IANA operator, for a couple of reasons:
> > * we don't accept that ICANN has any right to be making policy on
> > ccTLD matters, except to endorse or not endorse decisions that we
> > make, BUT
> > * the only forum we have for making those decisions is within ICANN,
> > which is also the IANA operator.
> What is preventing you from creating an independent forum?
> (I am not being rhetorical, it's a genuine question.)
> If an independent forum existed, it could negotiate with
> ICANN as others have done.
I agree that is an option, but the problem I see with it relates to the
fact that ICANN already gathers all the key players with an interest in
ccTLD matters (which is a broader set than those that make policy on these,
per se): governments, ccTLD operators, users, registrars to some degree.
It would seem unlikely that you'd be able to get buy-in for "another ICANN"
to be created.
The smaller and simpler conceptual divide is to put the IANA functions
operator in a different structure, but views on that are to say the least
Chief Executive, InternetNZ
+64-21-442-649 | jordan at internetnz.net.nz
Sent on the run, apologies for brevity
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss