Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Hello All, Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers. The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role. ICANN: 1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system." 2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit." Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce - Can we find a better word than 'participate' for ICANN's function in the operation of the DNS? And I would take out the word 'also'. Maybe 'support' is a more accurate word? Thanks, Erika On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Erika,Dear Bruce One possible suggestion would be " to contribute" Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Feb 2016, at 10:36, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Bruce - Can we find a better word than 'participate' for ICANN's function in the operation of the DNS? And I would take out the word 'also'. Maybe 'support' is a more accurate word?
Thanks, Erika
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
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
Contribute is fine by me. Thanks for the suggestion Kavouss. From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 9 February 2016 9:17 PM To: Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers Dear Erika,Dear Bruce One possible suggestion would be " to contribute" Regards Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 9 Feb 2016, at 10:36, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com<mailto:erika@erikamann.com>> wrote: Bruce - Can we find a better word than 'participate' for ICANN's function in the operation of the DNS? And I would take out the word 'also'. Maybe 'support' is a more accurate word? Thanks, Erika On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello All, Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers. The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role. ICANN: 1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system." 2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit." Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you Bruce, could you please clarify whether this text has been discussed / approved with RSSAC ? -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Bruce Tonkin Envoyé : mardi 9 février 2016 10:19 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers Hello All, Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers. The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role. ICANN: 1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system." 2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit." Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Yeah it would be good to know if this was actually discussed with RSSAC to save the co-chairs some time of having to go back to them although I understand that board may want to engage with CCWG directly (to avoid unecessary hear say...) I guess confirming that the RSSAC gives a nod on this is the most important. As to .INT i guess we should not delve into that here as its been discussed within CWG and put to a proper rest. That said, and just for note, i have no strong feeling about what i am about to say hence may not need to be considered; from the first part of Bruce statement, i think combining domain name system(DNS) with "root name server system" seem not to flow quite well. So i am wondering if the following would help: "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS *of the(or within the)* root name server system." Regards On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Thank you Bruce, could you please clarify whether this text has been discussed / approved with RSSAC ?
-----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Bruce Tonkin Envoyé : mardi 9 février 2016 10:19 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Hello Mathieu,
Thank you Bruce, could you please clarify whether this text has been discussed / approved with RSSAC ?
I discussed with the co-chairs of RSSAC, who in turn discussed at an RSSAC meeting last week. Their advice following their meeting was: * For the coordination role we propose and fully support - "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system." RSSAC believes that this captures, at the right level of abstraction, ICANN's current coordination role accurately. * For ICANN's current operational roles, RSSAC suggests that if ICANN desires a description in the bylaws, it should be independent of the aforementioned italicized language. RSSAC believes language dealing with operational roles should be separate because RSSAC does not have the mandate to designate ICANN's operational roles. As an advisory committee to the board, we remain neutral to the scope of ICANN's current operational roles with regard to DNS root name server operations. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Thank you Bruce, this is very helpful and encouraging ! -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Bruce Tonkin Envoyé : mercredi 10 février 2016 08:34 À : Accountability Cross Community Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers Hello Mathieu,
Thank you Bruce, could you please clarify whether this text has been discussed / approved with RSSAC ?
I discussed with the co-chairs of RSSAC, who in turn discussed at an RSSAC meeting last week. Their advice following their meeting was: * For the coordination role we propose and fully support - "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system." RSSAC believes that this captures, at the right level of abstraction, ICANN's current coordination role accurately. * For ICANN's current operational roles, RSSAC suggests that if ICANN desires a description in the bylaws, it should be independent of the aforementioned italicized language. RSSAC believes language dealing with operational roles should be separate because RSSAC does not have the mandate to designate ICANN's operational roles. As an advisory committee to the board, we remain neutral to the scope of ICANN's current operational roles with regard to DNS root name server operations. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation. It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player. I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role. (See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias). On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 10:09:54AM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
ICANN isn't the registry operator of ARPA any more than Afilias is the operator of ORG. ICANN performs technical operations of ARPA at the behest of the IAB, and I'd like to suggest that that relationship is none of this WG's business. (Also, we spent considerable time on the issues of INT and ARPA in the CWG-Stewardship quite some time ago, and I suggest this WG doesn't need to re-explore the rathole, either.) But anyway, I don't understand how the operation of any TLD and the operation of one of the named root server systems impinge on each other at all. Could you please explain how they might? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Nigel, .int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process. Martin -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation. It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player. I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role. (See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias). On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
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
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time. I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I'm generally content with this approach. But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked. On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time. I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I share that concern, that is why I wanted a commitment to divest made during the transition.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:52 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I'm generally content with this approach.
But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.
On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time. I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The footnote to paragraph 173 (1173 of the consolidated proposal from the ICG on page 64), repeated on page 53, says, "The CWG-Stewardship has considered the .INT domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .INT done by ICANN/IANA the CWG-Stewardship does not see any need for changes in the management of the .INT domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .INT domain should be subject to review post transition." There was no suggestion that this needed to be in WS2 - I certainly thought that this was more something for the first review of the IANA functions operation under the new regime - it is not an ICANN enhanced accountability issue, but it is one of the IANA functions for which stewardship is being transferred by NTIA. Leaving aside questions of belief (Milton's assertion that IANA should not be running a TLD, mine that there is no conflict), the hand-over of the .int TLD (which carries no policy-development responsibilities for ICANN and/or IANA) to a new operator is not trivial (and has been a delicate issue since at least ITU Plenipot 2002 Marrakech). And the CWG-Stewardship discussion showed no clear consensus for keep or divest. Hence the CWG conclusion that we did not need to make a decision (one way or another) and that a more relaxed timescale to deciding whether to require IANA to divest (and if so, what process to undertake to get there) was probably the only one that we'd all agree to. -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: 09 February 2016 15:13 To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers I share that concern, that is why I wanted a commitment to divest made during the transition.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:52 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I'm generally content with this approach.
But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.
On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time. I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi ty
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
With respect, the CWG relates to the IANA function. The CCWG relates to post transition accountability. It's pretty clear that there will be an accountability issue, and a conflict of interest regarding ICANN operating a registry, and I'm pleased to note that Prof Mueller agrees with this. This has to go into WS2 On 09/02/16 16:53, Martin Boyle wrote:
The footnote to paragraph 173 (1173 of the consolidated proposal from the ICG on page 64), repeated on page 53, says, "The CWG-Stewardship has considered the .INT domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .INT done by ICANN/IANA the CWG-Stewardship does not see any need for changes in the management of the .INT domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .INT domain should be subject to review post transition." There was no suggestion that this needed to be in WS2 - I certainly thought that this was more something for the first review of the IANA functions operation under the new regime - it is not an ICANN enhanced accountability issue, but it is one of the IANA functions for which stewardship is being transferred by NTIA.
Leaving aside questions of belief (Milton's assertion that IANA should not be running a TLD, mine that there is no conflict), the hand-over of the .int TLD (which carries no policy-development responsibilities for ICANN and/or IANA) to a new operator is not trivial (and has been a delicate issue since at least ITU Plenipot 2002 Marrakech). And the CWG-Stewardship discussion showed no clear consensus for keep or divest. Hence the CWG conclusion that we did not need to make a decision (one way or another) and that a more relaxed timescale to deciding whether to require IANA to divest (and if so, what process to undertake to get there) was probably the only one that we'd all agree to.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: 09 February 2016 15:13 To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I share that concern, that is why I wanted a commitment to divest made during the transition.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:52 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I'm generally content with this approach.
But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.
On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time. I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi ty
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 05:19:01PM +0000, Nigel Roberts wrote:
It's pretty clear that there will be an accountability issue
So far, I've heard two assertions of this accountability issue and not even an argument about what that issue is.
, and a conflict of interest regarding ICANN operating a registry
What is the conflict of interest, given that there is a clear policy, a far-from-obvious answer for how that policy is updated, and no evidence that anyone wants to adjust the policy?
This has to go into WS2
I'm not opposed to that. I just don't understand why this is an issue compared to anything else. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
I'm struggling to know what the accountability issue is and why it would be different from those put in place for the IANA functions operation. That's why I think the follow up is in the first IANA Functions Review to decide whether there are issues related to the IANA functions operator carrying out this particular element of the IANA functions. I've not heard any convincing arguments that it is a question related to ICANN's accountability. -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: 09 February 2016 17:19 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers With respect, the CWG relates to the IANA function. The CCWG relates to post transition accountability. It's pretty clear that there will be an accountability issue, and a conflict of interest regarding ICANN operating a registry, and I'm pleased to note that Prof Mueller agrees with this. This has to go into WS2 On 09/02/16 16:53, Martin Boyle wrote:
The footnote to paragraph 173 (1173 of the consolidated proposal from the ICG on page 64), repeated on page 53, says, "The CWG-Stewardship has considered the .INT domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .INT done by ICANN/IANA the CWG-Stewardship does not see any need for changes in the management of the .INT domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .INT domain should be subject to review post transition." There was no suggestion that this needed to be in WS2 - I certainly thought that this was more something for the first review of the IANA functions operation under the new regime - it is not an ICANN enhanced accountability issue, but it is one of the IANA functions for which stewardship is being transferred by NTIA.
Leaving aside questions of belief (Milton's assertion that IANA should not be running a TLD, mine that there is no conflict), the hand-over of the .int TLD (which carries no policy-development responsibilities for ICANN and/or IANA) to a new operator is not trivial (and has been a delicate issue since at least ITU Plenipot 2002 Marrakech). And the CWG-Stewardship discussion showed no clear consensus for keep or divest. Hence the CWG conclusion that we did not need to make a decision (one way or another) and that a more relaxed timescale to deciding whether to require IANA to divest (and if so, what process to undertake to get there) was probably the only one that we'd all agree to.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: 09 February 2016 15:13 To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I share that concern, that is why I wanted a commitment to divest made during the transition.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:52 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I'm generally content with this approach.
But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.
On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time. I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit."
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi ty
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, I think we should leave this as a CWG issue not a CCWG issue, and not an issue the CWG asked CCWG to handle. And if it is an accountability issue for anyone, it is for the registrants and users of .int. avri On 09-Feb-16 09:52, Martin Boyle wrote:
I'm struggling to know what the accountability issue is and why it would be different from those put in place for the IANA functions operation. That's why I think the follow up is in the first IANA Functions Review to decide whether there are issues related to the IANA functions operator carrying out this particular element of the IANA functions. I've not heard any convincing arguments that it is a question related to ICANN's accountability.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: 09 February 2016 17:19 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
With respect, the CWG relates to the IANA function.
The CCWG relates to post transition accountability.
It's pretty clear that there will be an accountability issue, and a conflict of interest regarding ICANN operating a registry, and I'm pleased to note that Prof Mueller agrees with this.
This has to go into WS2
On 09/02/16 16:53, Martin Boyle wrote:
The footnote to paragraph 173 (1173 of the consolidated proposal from the ICG on page 64), repeated on page 53, says, "The CWG-Stewardship has considered the .INT domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .INT done by ICANN/IANA the CWG-Stewardship does not see any need for changes in the management of the .INT domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .INT domain should be subject to review post transition." There was no suggestion that this needed to be in WS2 - I certainly thought that this was more something for the first review of the IANA functions operation under the new regime - it is not an ICANN enhanced accountability issue, but it is one of the IANA functions for which stewardship is being transferred by NTIA.
Leaving aside questions of belief (Milton's assertion that IANA should not be running a TLD, mine that there is no conflict), the hand-over of the .int TLD (which carries no policy-development responsibilities for ICANN and/or IANA) to a new operator is not trivial (and has been a delicate issue since at least ITU Plenipot 2002 Marrakech). And the CWG-Stewardship discussion showed no clear consensus for keep or divest. Hence the CWG conclusion that we did not need to make a decision (one way or another) and that a more relaxed timescale to deciding whether to require IANA to divest (and if so, what process to undertake to get there) was probably the only one that we'd all agree to.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: 09 February 2016 15:13 To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I share that concern, that is why I wanted a commitment to divest made during the transition.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:52 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I'm generally content with this approach.
But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.
On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time. I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers. The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role. ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit." Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi ty
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
1+ to Avri Wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Di 09.02.2016 20:10 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers Hi, I think we should leave this as a CWG issue not a CCWG issue, and not an issue the CWG asked CCWG to handle. And if it is an accountability issue for anyone, it is for the registrants and users of .int. avri On 09-Feb-16 09:52, Martin Boyle wrote:
I'm struggling to know what the accountability issue is and why it would be different from those put in place for the IANA functions operation. That's why I think the follow up is in the first IANA Functions Review to decide whether there are issues related to the IANA functions operator carrying out this particular element of the IANA functions. I've not heard any convincing arguments that it is a question related to ICANN's accountability.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: 09 February 2016 17:19 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
With respect, the CWG relates to the IANA function.
The CCWG relates to post transition accountability.
It's pretty clear that there will be an accountability issue, and a conflict of interest regarding ICANN operating a registry, and I'm pleased to note that Prof Mueller agrees with this.
This has to go into WS2
On 09/02/16 16:53, Martin Boyle wrote:
The footnote to paragraph 173 (1173 of the consolidated proposal from the ICG on page 64), repeated on page 53, says, "The CWG-Stewardship has considered the .INT domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .INT done by ICANN/IANA the CWG-Stewardship does not see any need for changes in the management of the .INT domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .INT domain should be subject to review post transition." There was no suggestion that this needed to be in WS2 - I certainly thought that this was more something for the first review of the IANA functions operation under the new regime - it is not an ICANN enhanced accountability issue, but it is one of the IANA functions for which stewardship is being transferred by NTIA.
Leaving aside questions of belief (Milton's assertion that IANA should not be running a TLD, mine that there is no conflict), the hand-over of the ..int TLD (which carries no policy-development responsibilities for ICANN and/or IANA) to a new operator is not trivial (and has been a delicate issue since at least ITU Plenipot 2002 Marrakech). And the CWG-Stewardship discussion showed no clear consensus for keep or divest. Hence the CWG conclusion that we did not need to make a decision (one way or another) and that a more relaxed timescale to deciding whether to require IANA to divest (and if so, what process to undertake to get there) was probably the only one that we'd all agree to.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: 09 February 2016 15:13 To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I share that concern, that is why I wanted a commitment to divest made during the transition.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:52 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I'm generally content with this approach.
But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.
On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time. I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities related to root servers. The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role. ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability remit." Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi ty
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Well said Avri. Kindest regards, Olivier On 09/02/2016 20:10, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
I think we should leave this as a CWG issue not a CCWG issue, and not an issue the CWG asked CCWG to handle.
And if it is an accountability issue for anyone, it is for the registrants and users of .int.
avri
On 09-Feb-16 09:52, Martin Boyle wrote:
I'm struggling to know what the accountability issue is and why it would be different from those put in place for the IANA functions operation. That's why I think the follow up is in the first IANA Functions Review to decide whether there are issues related to the IANA functions operator carrying out this particular element of the IANA functions. I've not heard any convincing arguments that it is a question related to ICANN's accountability.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: 09 February 2016 17:19 To: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk> Cc: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
With respect, the CWG relates to the IANA function.
The CCWG relates to post transition accountability.
It's pretty clear that there will be an accountability issue, and a conflict of interest regarding ICANN operating a registry, and I'm pleased to note that Prof Mueller agrees with this.
This has to go into WS2
On 09/02/16 16:53, Martin Boyle wrote:
The footnote to paragraph 173 (1173 of the consolidated proposal from the ICG on page 64), repeated on page 53, says, "The CWG-Stewardship has considered the .INT domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .INT done by ICANN/IANA the CWG-Stewardship does not see any need for changes in the management of the .INT domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .INT domain should be subject to review post transition." There was no suggestion that this needed to be in WS2 - I certainly thought that this was more something for the first review of the IANA functions operation under the new regime - it is not an ICANN enhanced accountability issue, but it is one of the IANA functions for which stewardship is being transferred by NTIA.
Leaving aside questions of belief (Milton's assertion that IANA should not be running a TLD, mine that there is no conflict), the hand-over of the .int TLD (which carries no policy-development responsibilities for ICANN and/or IANA) to a new operator is not trivial (and has been a delicate issue since at least ITU Plenipot 2002 Marrakech). And the CWG-Stewardship discussion showed no clear consensus for keep or divest. Hence the CWG conclusion that we did not need to make a decision (one way or another) and that a more relaxed timescale to deciding whether to require IANA to divest (and if so, what process to undertake to get there) was probably the only one that we'd all agree to.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: 09 February 2016 15:13 To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I share that concern, that is why I wanted a commitment to divest made during the transition.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:52 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I'm generally content with this approach.
But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.
On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time. I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its 'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote: > Hello All, > > Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of > responsibilities related to root servers. > The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to coordination role and the other relates to the operational role. > ICANN: > > 1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the > DNS root name server system." > > 2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS > root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and > stability remit." > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi > ty > _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y
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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On 9 Feb 2016 6:19 p.m., "Nigel Roberts" <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
It's pretty clear that there will be an accountability issue, and a
conflict of interest regarding ICANN operating a registry,
SO: If I may ask, who is managing .INT at the moment and does it posit a conflict of interest at the moment? Secondly, at the moment I understand that an and organisation can serve as both Registry and Registrar (if he/she meets the requirement) does that posit conflict as well? I personally have no problem and don't care about who runs .INT but I continue to wonder why that will be tied to ICANN accountability and most importantly why this should be within the remit of the CCWG to determine. Regards .
This has to go into WS2
On 09/02/16 16:53, Martin Boyle wrote:
The footnote to paragraph 173 (1173 of the consolidated proposal from
the ICG on page 64), repeated on page 53, says, "The CWG-Stewardship has considered the .INT domain, and concluded that provided there is no policy change under .INT done by ICANN/IANA the CWG-Stewardship does not see any need for changes in the management of the .INT domain in conjunction with the transition. Future administration of the .INT domain should be subject to review post transition." There was no suggestion that this needed to be in WS2 - I certainly thought that this was more something for the first review of the IANA functions operation under the new regime - it is not an ICANN enhanced accountability issue, but it is one of the IANA functions for which stewardship is being transferred by NTIA.
Leaving aside questions of belief (Milton's assertion that IANA should
not be running a TLD, mine that there is no conflict), the hand-over of the .int TLD (which carries no policy-development responsibilities for ICANN and/or IANA) to a new operator is not trivial (and has been a delicate issue since at least ITU Plenipot 2002 Marrakech). And the CWG-Stewardship discussion showed no clear consensus for keep or divest. Hence the CWG conclusion that we did not need to make a decision (one way or another) and that a more relaxed timescale to deciding whether to require IANA to divest (and if so, what process to undertake to get there) was probably the only one that we'd all agree to.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: 09 February 2016 15:13 To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I share that concern, that is why I wanted a commitment to divest made during the transition.
-----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:52 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.uk>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
I'm generally content with this approach.
But I am concerned that in leaving this to WS2, it will be overlooked.
On 09/02/16 14:48, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
.INT was discussed at length. The results were inconclusive; many people, including myself, agreed with Nigel that IANA should not be running a TLD and wanted to divest .INT
Others argued that divestiture of .INT was not directly related to the replacement of NTIA's stewardship role and the potentially thorny issue of who to give it to should therefore be left to another time.
I think there was an agreement to leave it to the future but also general
agreement that IANA should not be running a TLD.
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Boyle Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:41 AM To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; accountability-cross- community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
Nigel,
.int was discussed in the CWG-Stewardship - I'd need to look up what the conclusion was, but I'd note that .int is considered as one of the IANA roles and the CWG considered that it was up to subsequent discussion to consider whether the status quo needed to be reassessed in a post-implementation process.
Martin
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: 09 February 2016 10:10 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Suggested text relating to ICANN's role with respect to rood servers
In terms of accountability, ICANN needs strongly to consider
separation.
It cannot be both gamekeeper and poacher, or perhaps a better metaphor, both referee and player.
I submit to the WG that it needs to consider a plan to transition its roles as registry operator (.INT, .ARPA) and as root server operator, so as to remove any appearance of bias in its
'co-ordination' role.
(See McGonnell v UK for the definition of apparent bias).
On 09/02/16 09:18, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
Below is some revised text regarding ICANN scope of responsibilities
related to root servers.
The text is not separated into two separate points. One relates to
coordination role and the other relates to the operational role.
ICANN:
1) "Facilitates coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system."
2) "In its role, ICANN also participates in the operation of DNS root name server system in keeping with ICANN¹s security and stability
remit."
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communi ty
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y
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 (12)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Erika Mann -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Martin Boyle -
Mathieu Weill -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji