[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Sep 10 11:40:30 UTC 2014
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> - 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.
Okay i agree with this view to some extent, however i think if its clearly
defined that IANA implementation is going to be solely by policy, that
alone will serve some level of oversight. I am thinking aloud and wondering
why this has been so well practised within the RIR without any major alarm.
I think there are 2 reasons for this:
- The IP resource owner/requester serves an extent of accountability by
ensuring that his/her resource is processed by staff based on the existing
policies. When such does not happen, there are clear means by which a
customer raises alarm
- The board of directors (BOD) understands that policies are defacto!
Although before any policy proposal gets implemented, it needs to pass
through board but they don't get changed, though it could be pending
ratification which also has a clear timeline on maximum length of time such
proposal could last on board's table. I think the board has respected the
community developed process because they understand that if they do
something extremely contrary to what the community has said, they could be
kicked out of their positions by its members (yes valid for my region's
RIR, don't know about others).
I think the difference between the RIR and that of ICANN is largely related
to the overall power BOD has. So there has to be a way of introducing some
level of BOD accountability to the community and if it means introducing
memberships so be it. (afterall within RIR, there is the larger community
and members who are also part of the community that have the right to hold
the board accountable). I generally don't see why a staff will refuse not
to implement according to policy unless its receiving strong backing from
the BOD...overall, the BOD may be the fish-bone that needs to be worked on
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
By finding a way around it....i mean they may form another IANA which
ofcourse does not necessarily mean taking away any contract. Its rather
taking their service elsewhere, i believe this instinct should be clearly
known to ICANN.
......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.
You are right, i figured my statement above may not be explicit enough.
However i think it can be maintained especially if the 3 major communities
(the number, Names and protocol ) wants to do so through agreements (which
is not necessarily contract). Maybe legal folks could wage in here.
> .............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
I very much agree that there is quite a lot of community confidence that
needs to be achieved in all these, and i am not in anyway saying all is
well with ICANN (no reasonable person will say that). I just don't think
dissecting IANA or creating another contractual regime is entirely helpful
in fixing any problem that ICANN has. If by 2015 the community cannot find
a way to make ICANN accountable other than through putting it under another
contracting body, then IMHO it may more useful to maintain the status-quo
until we sense ICANN has fully grown.
Like its been said in previous interaction; the devil you know (NTIA/US)
may be better that the angel you are yet to know.
I am open to ways by which we can make ICANN continue to earn IANA
functions without necessarily creating a new oversight body that will
itself require another oversight and cause an endless loop.
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss