David, nice to hear that you think all is hunky dory. But why are having a CCWG Accountability then, in the first place? Have you ever been in a developing country during a civil war yourself? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: [Wp4] WP4 Deliverable: Elaborating an ICANN Commitment to Human RIghts Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 19:50:25 +0000 From: David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org> To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>, accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>

Nigel,

This isn't a portmanteau, it is a fantasy that cannot occur.

1) in the event there is contention between the existing and proposed new TLD manager, ICANN follows (and always has) the "Postel principle" of referring the contending parties back to resolve their differences and to return with a consensus proposal, maintaining the status quo.

2) Section 3.1 of RFC 1591 clearly and explicitly requires the administrator of a zone to be in the country of the TLD.

3) ICANN would not, under its current bylaws, be able to support the use of a 12 month old copy of the registry database because it would obviously have direct, negative impact to the security and stability of the DNS.

4) Section 3.4 of RFC 1591 would disallow the transfer due to the requirement that "significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party."

Any one of these would result in IANA refusing to allow the transfer to move forward.

Regards, -drc

...

Here's an example.

ICANN takes away the management of a ccTLD from a ccTLD manager in a third world country based on false representations from a third party.

The responsible person at the manager has little English and is in any event under the pressure of threatened harm to himself or his staff if he objects. ICANN locates a 12 month old copy of the registry database and passes it to the new manager who starts operations out of North America, selling the domains for profit to California startups.

(NB: This is a portmanteau stitched together from various situations, so is entirely hypothetical for our purposes).

ICANN has on the face of things, infringed at least on two fundamental rights here - intellectual property, and the right to a fair hearing.

Your proposed wording could easily be used to eliminate any consequences from this.

[...]