Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [ccTLDcommunity] ICANN transition
Speaking for myself, I find all of this pretty upsetting, particularly since ICANN seems to be blaming the USG for this position, and my impression is that the USG doesn¹t share this perspective at all. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz On 5/5/15, 10:34 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
"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."
If this statement, made publicly, and from a respected source, is literally true, aren't we all wasting our time??
Surely a starting point HAS to be that we (ccTLDs) need the accountability that potentially the ccTLD part of IANA role could be moved if the current function operator does not come up to scratch?
What does the CCWG think?
Nigel Roberts _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmana gers.org_mailman_listinfo_cctldcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=4VZqWjmswnfEoPxKQ9x6B2Yq_ v2U69H_zpJiiqcrCpk&s=UPu4q5iiJtlrv34Y13NGjaUT9GAKtgwWqQKVh4rDqGE&e=
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
Maybe we must take a holistic approach here. el On 2015-05-05 17:23, Burr, Becky wrote:
Speaking for myself, I find all of this pretty upsetting, particularly since ICANN seems to be blaming the USG for this position, and my impression is that the USG doesn¹t share this perspective at all.
J. Beckwith Burr [...]
On 5/5/15, 10:34 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
"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."
If this statement, made publicly, and from a respected source, is literally true, aren't we all wasting our time??
Surely a starting point HAS to be that we (ccTLDs) need the accountability that potentially the ccTLD part of IANA role could be moved if the current function operator does not come up to scratch?
What does the CCWG think?
Nigel Roberts [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
One pattern which has played out between ICANN, the RIRS, and IETF and even some ccTLDs over the last years has been whenever new organisational strucutures are discussed (eg the formation of the ASO) a logical consideration by the technical body pushes for a 'we must have a let-out clause to give the function to someone else in case there is failure' which gets heard at ICANN as a form of searching for leverage/extortion over ICANN so that it is not be able to do its job independently. Both parties tend to look at the issue and their responsibilites with good faith - but the push and response gets heard differently on each side. I wonder if we are hearing echoes of a replay of this pattern. Paul -- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com On 5/6/15 2:23 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
Speaking for myself, I find all of this pretty upsetting, particularly since ICANN seems to be blaming the USG for this position, and my impression is that the USG doesn¹t share this perspective at all.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006 Office: + 1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / becky.burr@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
On 5/5/15, 10:34 AM, "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
"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."
If this statement, made publicly, and from a respected source, is literally true, aren't we all wasting our time??
Surely a starting point HAS to be that we (ccTLDs) need the accountability that potentially the ccTLD part of IANA role could be moved if the current function operator does not come up to scratch?
What does the CCWG think?
Nigel Roberts _______________________________________________ ccTLDcommunity mailing list ccTLDcommunity@cctld-managers.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lists.cctld-2Dmana gers.org_mailman_listinfo_cctldcommunity&d=AwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw &r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=4VZqWjmswnfEoPxKQ9x6B2Yq_ v2U69H_zpJiiqcrCpk&s=UPu4q5iiJtlrv34Y13NGjaUT9GAKtgwWqQKVh4rDqGE&e=
To unsubscribe please send a blank email to ccTLDcommunity-unsubscribe@lists.cctld-managers.org
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (3)
-
Burr, Becky -
Dr Eberhard Lisse -
Paul Twomey