[discuss] Testing "structural separation" accountability mechanism
joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com
Fri Sep 5 07:55:32 UTC 2014
I understand that this is not the first round of these discussions and
in some ways you are getting to the details, but beyond the ultimate
hammer solution of the removal of the contract, I was wondering whether
there may have been a more subtle salutary effects of the NTIA role. A
parent in the room, even if not paying close attention to the children,
helps create a environment that promotes more responsible behavior...
Are we considering that effect as well as the ultimate hammer?
On 9/5/2014 3:39 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
> <mailto:mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:
>> The ultimate form of accountability is when the IANA functions can be
>> taken away from the provider. That is, the contract can be awarded to
>> someone else if ICANN performs poorly, takes ultra vires actions, etc.
> Milton -
> Let's test the usefulness of this mechanism... If this had been the
> case, then when over
> the last decade would have the community moved the IANA functions
> from ICANN, and
> how would that decision have been made?
> I understand how other mechanisms (e.g. ability to remove a Board
> member) can be used
> readily used as an accountability mechanism (and don't require major
> operation changes),
> but if the policy communities had had control of the "structural
> separation" knob rather than
> NTIA, when and how would it have been used?
> Disclaimer: my views alone
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss