[discuss] [IANAxfer] [ccnso-igrg] Two accountability questions - help pls- Workshop 23 - ICANN accountability

John Curran jcurran at istaff.org
Thu Sep 11 19:21:14 UTC 2014

On Sep 11, 2014, at 3:13 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>> A good way to reconcile those two requirements is to have an
>> "independent judiciary" with the authority to enforce binding, constitutional
>> limitations on what the policy process can do. This appeals process could be
>> used to challenge ultra vires policies, to challenge major process failures, or
>> to challenge implementations that do not reflect agreed policies. All of these
>> challenges should take place BEFORE anything hits the IANA, of course.
>> While it's somewhat understandable that this would be considered desirable
>> by some in the DNS community, it's probably worth considering how this
>> looks to the other organizations which rely on the IANA operator (i.e. the
>> IETF and RIR communities.)
>> For the IETF community, your "independent judiciary" introduces "noise"
>> into their already existing and well-working system.  It effectively creates an
>> "attack vector"
> As noted, I am talking about a strengthening of ICANN's IRP, which only applies to its DNS policy making role. Neither I nor anyone I know have any intention of making IRP applicable to IETF standards decisions. And it would not be, any more than the current IRP could be used against IETF or IAB decisions. So that argument can be disposed of quickly. 

I actually am not certain that the scope of the IRP is so constrained (i.e. 
I would expect that it could be used against the ICANN Board's ratification, 
or failure to ratify, a global number resource policy), so perhaps it might be 
best to make that explicit in your ""strengthened IRP"/"independent judiciary" 

>> One could make the same arguments for the RIR community, but there's
>> even more irony in this particular case, in that the "independent review"
>> body for new global  address policies is already in place and operational, 
>> and it is... the ICANN Board.
> A body which, the consensus is everywhere but inside ICANN, Inc., lacks sufficient accountability. ;-)
> Nevertheless, as noted, most of us are talking about reform of the DNS space not numbering.

Excellent... I think we simply need to seek better clarity in language of 
proposals to otherwise avoid potential cross contamination.


Disclaimer: my views alone.

More information about the discuss mailing list