Further comment on concerns that ICANN will reject community developed proposals
Hello All, Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists:
"ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity."
The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system. The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process. The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process. Regards, Bruce Tonkin Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability
Hi Bruce, Thanks very much for your message on behalf of the ICANN Board. I trust these points and clarifications also cover the involvement of ICANN Staff? Regards, Keith
On May 6, 2015, at 6:21 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
Regarding the following statement posted in numerous lists:
"ICANN has verbally represented that they will reject any proposed agreement in which ICANN is not deemed the sole source prime contractor for the IANA functions in perpetuity."
The ICANN Board supports the community processes that have been used to develop proposals for the IANA transition and ICANN's accountability. ICANN also recognizes and accepts that the community will want to have fall back mechanisms in place should the IANA functions operator not perform its function to the standards required by the community. An important part of any system that focusses on security and stability is to document processes for handling any failures of the system.
The Board also supports the need for the ICG to coordinate the various transition proposals, and awaits the outcome of that process.
The Board will consider the recent reports from the CWG and CCWG that are open for public comment, and will raise any concerns it has in writing. We urge other community members to focus on the documents produced by the cross-community working groups, and provide feedback to the cross-community working groups through the public comment process.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Board Liaison to the CCWG on Accountability
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Keith,
Thanks very much for your message on behalf of the ICANN Board. I trust these points and clarifications also cover the involvement of ICANN Staff?
We have asked staff to identify any concerns that they have identified for review by the Board as part of our process of developing responses for the public comment periods. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
participants (2)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Drazek, Keith