[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Tue Sep 9 19:32:09 UTC 2014
From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
Not quite right. ICANN could operate the IANA, as a fully separated subsidiary, if it won the contract from a new contracting authority. The issue is whether it just “gets” IANA or whether it has to earn it.
Okay thanks for clarifying this and i also share the fact that ICANN has to earn IANA by being accountable to its customers. However you seem to be indicating that the only way to achieve this is by continuing with the contracting approach which i don't think should be the case. There are 2 major ways by which i think ICANN can be reminded of the fact that it doesn't own the funtions and by so has no absolute control over it.
- Through the various policy processes (which i think you also agreed to in your mail)
Policy processes cannot take IANA away from ICANN nor can they provide appropriate levels of oversight over policy implementation. Indeed, the policy process is entirely dependent on ICANN to implement it, and if ICANN ignores the PDP and implements what it prefers (which has happened a few times) we have no recourse.
The reality is that the functions are actually in effect because many service providers subscribed to it. If ICANN so extremely miss-behaves then it definitely won't be the end of the Internet as i would expect major service providers to be able to find a way around this.
They would find away around it: by chagning their service provider, i.e. by taking away the contract. I don’t understand why you resist this simple idea.
Hmm....i think i can almost +1'd this but like to get some clarification. Are you saying that there is already an existing separation between names policy and IANA names function? If yes then i agree to that. Are you also saying that the separation was made possible because of the contract? If Yes, no problem. Would you not also agree then that the current separation can be maintained even without the contract?
No, I would not agree with that last part. How can any reasonable person agree with that? If there is no contractual obligation to maintain the separation, then the separation will collapse as soon as it is in ICANN’s organizational self-interest to do so.
Okay i will further explain, historically and from my discussion with people who where there when it all started. I have figured that ICANN was purpose built; which is to ultimately coordinate the internet resources and the reason why there was need for contract is to allow the then young and vulnerable ICANN grow to maturity before it is fully allowed to be independent. So i think going out of this contracting processes should indeed be the next phase in the growing process of ICANN and it absolutely may not make any much difference if it leaves one contracting regime to enter into another.
When people build things, they can make mistakes. ICANN has inadequate accountability to be given untrammelled control of the DNS root and number spaces.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss