Dear colleagues, Many apologies for missing calls this week, but as I noted in Marrakesh this week is the IETF meeting and I have approximately no time. Anyway, I have some remarks. I'm sorry these are lengthy. Q1 On the Mission, q1, I think it is extremely unfortunate to agree to remove the restriction of "in the root zone". I reject unequivocally the argument, "It is not true that ICANN coordinates assignment ONLY in the root zone, as such term is currently understood. ICANN’s gTLD registry and registrar agreements and policies deal substantially and primarily with issues relating to assignment of names at the second (and in some cases lower) levels of the DNS." ICANN's gTLD registry and registrar agreements an policies deal susbtantially and primarily with how _those registries and registrars_ coordinate assignment in zones outside the root zone. That is, ICANN's agreements are a meta-requirement on how other people do co-ordination in the DNS, and do not actualy perform the co-ordination I know that this seems like a fine distinction. But it's important to keep it in mind because the language that have been in the bylaws historically, and that the CCWG has agreed to restore, is the very basis on which various people around the Internet mistake ICANN for the Internet Police. By removing the restriction to the root zone, we are once again freeing ICANN to assert control down the DNS -- a control that is very much inconsistent with the distributed authority design of the DNS. Q3 It might be worth observing also that, since the requester is the person who asked for the transcripts and recordings, presumably the requester could be asked about certain redactions due to the issues outlined. Q6 The proposal for the community just to endorse whatever the board decides here strikes me as potentially risky. Supposed the community replaces a recalled board member with a new one that is less accommodating of a prevailing majority of the Board. The Board would be able to remove that new director with a 75% majority. If the EC does not have the ability to reject the Board's decision to remove, then there could be a procedural deadlock that could only be ameliorated by a complete replacement of the Board. That seems undesirable. Q17 I believe the requested addition is overspecification. It will simply yield disputes about whether a given recommendation is limited in the relevant way. Q25 The document says Initially, “solely” was added to tie the Petition Notice to the GAC Consensus Board Resolution. For example, the ICANN Budget is an amalgamation of many different inputs. If a particular expenditure is tangentially related to GAC advice, then the GAC should not be removed from voting on that petition. I don't understand this argument. There are two possibilities: either the expenditure is solely related to GAC advice (in which case, whether it's "tangential" is irrelevant) or it is not. If it is not, then the GAC exclusion is not entailed. If it is solely related to GAC advice, then I don't get the claim above that the GAC should not be excluded -- that's the whole point of the "carve out". I hope these remarks are useful. Please see also the remarks that I sent in collaboration with my colleagues on the IAB. Best regards, A On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 06:30:14PM -0400, Bernard Turcotte wrote:
All,
Co-chairs and rapporteurs have reviewed and proposed answers to all questions some based on the results of the Tuesday April 5th meeting of the CCWG-Accountability.
These are attached in preparation for the Thursday April 7th meeting of the CCWG-Accountability on this topic.
The CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs Mathieu, Thomas and Leon
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com