November 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Lawyer Request on enforcement vehicle as Sole Designator
by Jordan Carter Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Dear all I don't know if this has been circulated so I am forwarding it - apologies if I am treading on anyone's toes. I suspect this may be on the agenda for the CCWG on 3 November. best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ingrid Mittermaier <ingrid(a)adlercolvin.com> Date: 1 November 2015 at 03:45 Subject: RE: Update on Request on Sole Designator To: "Rosemary E. Fei" <rfei(a)adlercolvin.com>, "Mathieu Weill ( Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr)" <Mathieu.Weill(a)afnic.fr>, Thomas Rickert < thomas(a)rickert.net>, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía (leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx)" < leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>, "Jordan Carter (jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz)" < jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Cc: "ACCT-Staff (acct-staff(a)icann.org)" <acct-staff(a)icann.org>, "Sidley ICANN CCWG (sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com)" <sidleyicannccwg(a)sidley.com>, ICANN-Adler <ICANN(a)adlercolvin.com> Dear Co-Chairs and Jordan, Please find attached our memo on sole designator implementation (reframed as "community enforcement vehicle implementation" in the title of the memo). Sincerely, Ingrid Mittermaier (on behalf of Sidley and Adler teams) ===== Please be aware that this email is intended to provide a short response to the questions posed, without the benefit of legal research. If you would like a more thoroughly considered and researched response, please let us know. ===== Ingrid Mittermaier Adler & Colvin <snip> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr] > Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 11:23 PM > To: Holly Gregory; Rosemary E. Fei > Cc: Thomas Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; ACCT-Staff; Sidley > ICANN CCWG; ICANN-Adler > Subject: Request on Sole Designator > > Dear Holly, Dear Rosemary, > > I hope you had a safe trip back home after this week in Dublin. > > For our stretch to publication of the 3rd draft report, we have identified the need to flesh out the way the Sole Designator would be operationalized. Our request is to be provided with a 2-3 pages description of how the Sole Designator model would be implemented, how would the decisions be registered, conveyed, all the ministerial aspects of it. > > The goal is to demonstrate that this Sole Designator cannot be captured and would be very lightwieght for the organization. > > Let us know please if you need any further guidance. We would appreciate your input by Oct 29. > > Best, > Mathieu >

1 0

Fwd: RSSAC reps?
by Jordan Carter Nov. 2, 2015

Nov. 2, 2015

Same question to the broader list.... Co-chairs, maybe one of you could forward this question, possibly with a bit more context, to the RSSAC? best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 2 November 2015 at 17:56 Subject: RSSAC reps? To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all Are there any RSSAC reps on the WP1 email list? Has RSSAC got a position on whether it wants to take part in decision-making in the community mechanism (to exercise the community powers)? best Jordan Jordan T Carter Rapporteur, WP1, CCWG on Enhancing ICANN's Accountability -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

2 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
by Malcolm Hutty Nov. 1, 2015

Nov. 1, 2015

On 01/11/2015 01:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:52:36PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > >> The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is >> to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely >> reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today. > > That's the intent, yes. > >> On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet’s >> system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a >> broadening of scope. >> >> I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" >> is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text >> intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale. > > The change was actually intended to _limit_ scope, rather than > broaden. Let me try to explain what we were thinking. Andrew, Thank you for this helpful clarification, and your extended reasoning. It is very welcome to have confirmed that, as I expected, we share the same aim, and are only discussing what might be the best wording to achieve it. If the intention is to limit scope, it seems odd to move from a scope that is bounded, if a little imprecisely ("the Internet's system of globally unique identifiers"), to one which is wholly unbounded "core Internet registries", especially since you acknowledge existing examples of "core Internet registries" that are outside ICANN's purview. The language you proffer does state more clearly what ICANN's role is in respect of DNS, IP addresses and Internet protocols. This is very helpful and I cheerfully support those elements of your text. However it seems the very opposite of limiting scope to introduce a suggestion that there might be other Internet registries within ICANN's Mission while saying nothing to about what its role might be for them, nor any guidance to help identify which registries would be within and which without. > It's our view that the language about "global Internet's system of > unique identifiers" is part of the reason many people continue to > think (and write news stories to the effect) that ICANN is somehow in > control of the Internet. If the mission were clearer about just how > limited (while still crucial) the IANA remit were, perhaps we would > not be facing overblown worries about "giving the Internet away" and > so on -- worries that have made the IANA transition itself more > controversial than it ought to be. Fixing that would indeed be helpful, but by moving to an unbounded list of "core Internet registries" I think you may make the same problem even worse. As things are, at least you can explain that if it's not something that's globally unique then it's unquestionably out of ICANN's sphere (which deals with e-mail localparts, for example). With your text, the limiting factor is only what is "core", for which there is no explanation. Worse, the boundary of ICANN's responsiblity isn't set around the edges of "core", but somewhere unknown within that set: in your own claim, there are some things that qualify as "core" that still are not currently and should not be considered ICANN's responsibility (you give the example of enum). This lack of guidance as to the extent of ICANN's proper scope is a recipe for much confusion and disagreement, even amongst members of the technical community of that share a community culture and similar expectations. Should this text ever be the subject of formal adjudication, by a court for example, or by the arbitrators of the Independent Review Panel, I think a great deal of time and cost could be incurred investigating what "core" means and whether a particular new thing, that ICANN has just started doing, falls within this Mission or not. Even more worryingly, with such an unbounded list, a review panel might take the view that this text is not intended to limit ICANN's scope at all: for want of any persuasive alternative explanation, it might decide that a "core Internet registry" is any registry that ICANN supports, by definition, and that ICANN was authorised to do anything it wishes to "support" such registries, limited only by the specific limits enumerated elsewhere in the text. If that outcome came about it would never be possible to say that some new activity ICANN had undertaken lay outside its Mission; the mere fact that ICANN had undertaken it would justify doing so. That would denude ICANN of any argument for declining to undertake any activity that others would like to thrust upon it: it could never say "that's not our job", because as soon as it started the activity, it would become part of the mission. I've set this out at length not because I'm trying to be argumentative, but because I think this is a serious problem in your wording that it is really important to fix and, since we agree in our aims, I would like to persuade you to the same conclusion. > I hope this makes plainer at least what our thinking is. The IAB is > not trying to be firm about the precise way things are stated, and I > am more than happy to try to find better language. Perhaps the root cause of the problem here is how your text interacts with the existing wording "In particular", which designates what follows as a non-exhaustive list. Let me suggest a solution: if instead of saying The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at the overall level, core Internet registries, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: [details in points 1,2,3,4] we add the word "certain" before "core Internet registries" (to clarify that it's not all of them) and replace "in particular" with "specifically" (or some other word designating an exhaustive list), as follows: The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at the overall level, certain core Internet registries, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Specifically, ICANN: [details in points 1,2,3,4 - all as you propose] I think this would better achieve the aim you describe, and would satisfy me entirely. Does this work for you? Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

1 0