[discuss] Testing "structural separation" accountability mechanism (was: Re: [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability

Mon Sep 8 15:30:10 UTC 2014

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]

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?

ALL during the last decade, the NTIA _could have_ moved the IANA functions from ICANN. A true scientific test would require comparison of an alternate universe in which that capability did not exist. Then and only then could one observe how ICANN would have behaved.

Nevertheless, some observations. I have heard that ICANN's attempt to force ccTLD operators to sign contracts with ICANN otherwise their root zone data would not be updated was squelched by NTIA. So that's case 1.

And, as noted before during these dialogues, in the latest round of contracting NTIA did not initially approve of ICANN's application.

 but if the policy communities had had control of the "structural separation" knob rather than
 NTIA, when and how would it have been used?

This is such a bad argument. I repeat:  ALL during the last decade, the NTIA _could have_ moved the IANA functions from ICANN; ergo, there _was_ control of the structural separation knob. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain why it should not be there.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140908/3ef922c8/attachment.html>