Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC
Hello Paul,
"Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
Regarding your point (a) above - that seems much more limited than ICANN's current purpose and mission. Was that your intent? From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/articles-2012-02-25-en The articles of incorporation state that ICANN's purpose is: 'In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv)." Further, from: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#I the bylaws state the mission of ICANN as: "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN: 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS"); b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and c. Protocol port and parameter numbers. 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. 3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions" For example, if ICANN is just restricted to managing and operating the IANA function - that would remove ICANN from nearly all the gTLD policies that are enforced by contract with gTLD registries and gTLD registrars. In fact ICANN would have no role whatsoever with respect to gTLD registrars as they have nothing to do with the IANA function. There would be no involvement of ICANN in establishing requirements for collecting domain name registrant (at the second level) contact information, publishing some of that information, or facilitating the ability of consumers to move their domain names from one registrar to another. While such restrictions may make sense for ccTLDs and IETF users of the IANA functions, I would be surprised if the community wants to remove ICANN's role with respect to gTLD policies. At least there will be a cost saving from having three ICANN public meetings a year - which mostly discuss gTLD policies at the second level. I could see the ICANN board agreeing to accountability recommendations that restrict the scope of ICANN to its current purposes as defined in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws. Maybe the current articles of incorporation and bylaws are too broad and the community might want to narrow their scope, but I would be surprised if the ICANN community as a whole wants the scope restricted to just the IANA functions. I recognize that one of the concerns is that ICANN will be under increasing pressure from some stakeholders to move further into areas of regulating Internet content in some way. I personally share that concern. This could be perhaps handled through refining ICANN's bylaws with respect to the mission.
From an accountability point of view, the option is for this group to consider accountability mechanisms to ensure that ICANN stays limited to its current mission and purpose, and also have a mechanism for how that mission and purposes could be further refined/restricted by the community.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, I also am concerned about the Policy Development Process here. The proposal would remove the ccNSO (at least) of the possibility to develop Policy. I am not sure that Paul's proposal is supported by the ccTLD contingent in the CCWG. I most certainly do not. Even if the terminology was right :-)-O ("operation" of the IANA Function is new, "management" is the accepted term and sufficient). But that is a side issue, even if it were within scope, which I don't think it is.o I can not support the substance, and would probably raise a formal objection if it were polled as is. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 31, 2014, at 08:11, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Paul,
"Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
Regarding your point (a) above - that seems much more limited than ICANN's current purpose and mission. Was that your intent?
From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/articles-2012-02-25-en
The articles of incorporation state that ICANN's purpose is:
'In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by
(i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet;
(ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space;
(iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system;
(iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and
(v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv)."
Further, from: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#I the bylaws state the mission of ICANN as:
"The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and
c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.
3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions"
For example, if ICANN is just restricted to managing and operating the IANA function - that would remove ICANN from nearly all the gTLD policies that are enforced by contract with gTLD registries and gTLD registrars. In fact ICANN would have no role whatsoever with respect to gTLD registrars as they have nothing to do with the IANA function. There would be no involvement of ICANN in establishing requirements for collecting domain name registrant (at the second level) contact information, publishing some of that information, or facilitating the ability of consumers to move their domain names from one registrar to another.
While such restrictions may make sense for ccTLDs and IETF users of the IANA functions, I would be surprised if the community wants to remove ICANN's role with respect to gTLD policies. At least there will be a cost saving from having three ICANN public meetings a year - which mostly discuss gTLD policies at the second level.
I could see the ICANN board agreeing to accountability recommendations that restrict the scope of ICANN to its current purposes as defined in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws.
Maybe the current articles of incorporation and bylaws are too broad and the community might want to narrow their scope, but I would be surprised if the ICANN community as a whole wants the scope restricted to just the IANA functions.
I recognize that one of the concerns is that ICANN will be under increasing pressure from some stakeholders to move further into areas of regulating Internet content in some way. I personally share that concern. This could be perhaps handled through refining ICANN's bylaws with respect to the mission.
From an accountability point of view, the option is for this group to consider accountability mechanisms to ensure that ICANN stays limited to its current mission and purpose, and also have a mechanism for how that mission and purposes could be further refined/restricted by the community.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, There is a legal complexity on this proposal asking what the Board Agree and what the Board not agree. CCWGneed to complete its works ,provide its views and not labelled them Recommendation but its conclusions or its outcome on accountability issue. Then leave it to the Board to comments I am not comfiortable to send such a note to the Board Kavouss 2014-12-31 7:59 GMT+01:00 Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>:
Bruce,
I also am concerned about the Policy Development Process here. The proposal would remove the ccNSO (at least) of the possibility to develop Policy.
I am not sure that Paul's proposal is supported by the ccTLD contingent in the CCWG. I most certainly do not.
Even if the terminology was right :-)-O ("operation" of the IANA Function is new, "management" is the accepted term and sufficient). But that is a side issue, even if it were within scope, which I don't think it is.o
I can not support the substance, and would probably raise a formal objection if it were polled as is.
el
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 31, 2014, at 08:11, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Paul,
"Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
Regarding your point (a) above - that seems much more limited than ICANN's current purpose and mission. Was that your intent?
From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/articles-2012-02-25-en
The articles of incorporation state that ICANN's purpose is:
'In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by
(i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet;
(ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space;
(iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system;
(iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and
(v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv)."
Further, from: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#I the bylaws state the mission of ICANN as:
"The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and
c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.
3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions"
For example, if ICANN is just restricted to managing and operating the IANA function - that would remove ICANN from nearly all the gTLD policies that are enforced by contract with gTLD registries and gTLD registrars. In fact ICANN would have no role whatsoever with respect to gTLD registrars as they have nothing to do with the IANA function. There would be no involvement of ICANN in establishing requirements for collecting domain name registrant (at the second level) contact information, publishing some of that information, or facilitating the ability of consumers to move their domain names from one registrar to another.
While such restrictions may make sense for ccTLDs and IETF users of the IANA functions, I would be surprised if the community wants to remove ICANN's role with respect to gTLD policies. At least there will be a cost saving from having three ICANN public meetings a year - which mostly discuss gTLD policies at the second level.
I could see the ICANN board agreeing to accountability recommendations that restrict the scope of ICANN to its current purposes as defined in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws.
Maybe the current articles of incorporation and bylaws are too broad and the community might want to narrow their scope, but I would be surprised if the ICANN community as a whole wants the scope restricted to just the IANA functions.
I recognize that one of the concerns is that ICANN will be under increasing pressure from some stakeholders to move further into areas of regulating Internet content in some way. I personally share that concern. This could be perhaps handled through refining ICANN's bylaws with respect to the mission.
From an accountability point of view, the option is for this group to consider accountability mechanisms to ensure that ICANN stays limited to its current mission and purpose, and also have a mechanism for how that mission and purposes could be further refined/restricted by the community.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Dr. Lisse On what basis do you think it is out of scope? I think that it directly answers this question: "What mechanisms are needed to ensure ICANN's accountability to the multi-stakeholder community once NTIA has disengaged from its stewardship role?" As for opposing the proposal itself, perhaps you could explain why? I've never really understood why asking a question might be problematic. It is always the answers that get us in trouble :-). Happy New Year all Paul **NOTE: OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 *** 509 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse [mailto:el@lisse.na] Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:59 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Cc: Lisse Eberhard; Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-Accountability] Agenda for CCWG-Accountability on 30 December at 19:00 UTC Bruce, I also am concerned about the Policy Development Process here. The proposal would remove the ccNSO (at least) of the possibility to develop Policy. I am not sure that Paul's proposal is supported by the ccTLD contingent in the CCWG. I most certainly do not. Even if the terminology was right :-)-O ("operation" of the IANA Function is new, "management" is the accepted term and sufficient). But that is a side issue, even if it were within scope, which I don't think it is.o I can not support the substance, and would probably raise a formal objection if it were polled as is. el Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Dec 31, 2014, at 08:11, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Paul,
"Will the Board agree, in principle, to accept accountability recommendations that a) restrict (either through Bylaw amendment or contract) the scope of ICANN activity exclusively to management and operation of the IANA function; and b) that provides an independent mechanism (whether through outside arbiter or internal review by a standing community group) by which alleged attempts by the Board/ICANN to exceed that narrow scope of authority may be adjudicated and, if necessary, restrained?
Regarding your point (a) above - that seems much more limited than ICANN's current purpose and mission. Was that your intent?
From: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/articles-2012-02-25-en
The articles of incorporation state that ICANN's purpose is:
'In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by
(i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet;
(ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space;
(iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system;
(iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and
(v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv)."
Further, from: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#I the bylaws state the mission of ICANN as:
"The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and
c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system.
3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions"
For example, if ICANN is just restricted to managing and operating the IANA function - that would remove ICANN from nearly all the gTLD policies that are enforced by contract with gTLD registries and gTLD registrars. In fact ICANN would have no role whatsoever with respect to gTLD registrars as they have nothing to do with the IANA function. There would be no involvement of ICANN in establishing requirements for collecting domain name registrant (at the second level) contact information, publishing some of that information, or facilitating the ability of consumers to move their domain names from one registrar to another.
While such restrictions may make sense for ccTLDs and IETF users of the IANA functions, I would be surprised if the community wants to remove ICANN's role with respect to gTLD policies. At least there will be a cost saving from having three ICANN public meetings a year - which mostly discuss gTLD policies at the second level.
I could see the ICANN board agreeing to accountability recommendations that restrict the scope of ICANN to its current purposes as defined in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws.
Maybe the current articles of incorporation and bylaws are too broad and the community might want to narrow their scope, but I would be surprised if the ICANN community as a whole wants the scope restricted to just the IANA functions.
I recognize that one of the concerns is that ICANN will be under increasing pressure from some stakeholders to move further into areas of regulating Internet content in some way. I personally share that concern. This could be perhaps handled through refining ICANN's bylaws with respect to the mission.
From an accountability point of view, the option is for this group to consider accountability mechanisms to ensure that ICANN stays limited to its current mission and purpose, and also have a mechanism for how that mission and purposes could be further refined/restricted by the community.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (4)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Paul Rosenzweig