[discuss] Fwd: [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
jcurran at istaff.org
Wed Sep 3 09:42:20 UTC 2014
Omitted 1net by accident - mea culpa.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>
> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
> Date: September 3, 2014 at 7:53:47 AM GMT+3
> To: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> Cc: Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>, "Ianaxfer at Elists. Isoc. Org" <ianaxfer at elists.isoc.org>, "ig at aptld.org" <ig at aptld.org>, "isoc-advisory-council at elists.isoc.org" <isoc-advisory-council at elists.isoc.org>
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 8:18 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>> I don¹t think what I said is inconsistent with a variety of structural
>> arrangements. And by IANA ³users² I mean registries, RIRs, IETF, etc.,
>> not individual Internet users. ...
> Becky -
> Thanks for that clarification - the misunderstanding was entirely mine.
> I also believe that "ICANN must be accountable to the ICANN community
> and to others materially harmed by its actions that are not consistent
> with a set of baseline, agreed upon behaviors (set out in a compact,
> for example, reflecting core values and principles of non-discrimination,
> due process" I believe this can be best accomplished by clearly defining
> _what_ ICANN should be doing and _why_ it is doing it.
> ICANN is supposed to be coordinating the global Internet's systems of
> unique identifiers, and this involves two primary tasks: recognition
> and facilitation of the bodies which do policy development for names
> and numbers, and execution (as the IANA operator) of the resulting
> policy. Each of these tasks needs clearly defined accountability,
> i.e. what is being done, for whom, by what principles and via what
> Indeed, if the DNS community were to have a clear and independent identity,
> then IANA accountability could be well-defined to be to the DNS community
> (via said body), the RIRs via the ASO, and the IETF. My personal preference
> is that all of these policy development bodies would have some formal agreement
> with ICANN for ICANN to perform IANA registry administration services on their
> behalf, including faithful adherence to adopted policies with a defined service
> levels, etc. These "IANA accountability items" should be fairly clerical in
> nature; one can refer to the various IETF/ICANN IANA supplemental agreements
> for examples of reporting, escalation, and publication requirements.
> Your accountability to "core values and principles" (such as those contained
> in ICANN's bylaws) are more likely to applicable to the policy development
> process itself, for example, the requirement that ICANN (and therefore any
> bodies so charged with primary policy development responsibilities) use
> "open and transparent policy development mechanisms that (i) promote well-
> informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those
> entities most affected can assist in the policy development process."
> An organized DNS community could enter into an agreement with ICANN to be
> recognized as the appropriate body for primary policy development, to adhere
> to these core values and principles in policy development, and with ICANN
> agreeing to ratify resulting global DNS policy developed in accordance
> with such core values.
> This is not much different that how things work today, only that it would be
> based on an agreement between the DNS community and ICANN (in ICANN's role as
> overall coordinator of global Internet's systems of unique identifiers) as
> opposed to the DNS community being defined entirely as a structure of the
> ICANN corporation.
> Disclaimers: my views alone - discontinue use immediately and consult your
> doctor if you experience headaches or severe vomiting... ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss