It would still be very useful, even at what seems to be quite a late point, for those advocating an internal solution to set out the counter-case…

Jordan,

auDA is an advocate of an internal solution. Paul Szyndler will happily provide you (ASAP) with details of our views and why we hold them as well as an explanation of why our proposed alternative models provide a high level of comfort about ‘pulling’ the rights.

May I ask you to explain in detail Internet NZ’s position please? I have seen a number of emails from you suggesting that you believe in an external to ICANN model ‘as a matter of principle’ but (and I acknowledge that I may have missed them) have seen nothing that explains why you believe that or that addresses how you think such a model contributes to the security, stability and resilience of the DNS.

Further, as you have admirably demonstrated with some of your comments on our proposed alternative models (and I have always acknowledged) the devil is in the details so perhaps you could also address how you would envisage contract co being set up, who the shareholder/members would be, what checks and balances would be in place to ensure that it could not act outside the will of the IANA customers or be used for ‘political’ purposes by holding the ICANN community to ransom over some issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with IANA?

Cheers,

Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer

.au Domain Administration Ltd

T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112

E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au

auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator

Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

On 30 Jan 2015, at 09:06 , Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

Hi all,

On 29 January 2015 at 18:57, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

However, we can too easily be bogged down in details. In this case, the devil may not be in the details. Instead, I think the issue is at a higher level -- oversight, control and accountability -- and at an even higher level -- trust (not "trusts"...). I think concerns about the trust model arise less from the details and more from a great deal of concern about ICANN being the "rightsholder" in relation to being the IANA Functions Operator, rather than being granted that right by a third-party rightsholder (now, NTIA; potentially in future, Contract Co.) who can "pull" those rights per the contract. These concerns may not abate merely because these rights are being held "in trust" for the beneficiaries (the "community" or some variation). These fundamental concerns relate to both ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator and ICANN generally,

What we need to resolve, if an internal-to-ICANN solution is to fly, is whether there are methods of oversight, accountability and separability that ICANN can and will adopt that will sufficiently alleviate these deeply held concerns. If not, then we need the best available solution where the right to act as IANA Functions Operator is held outside ICANN,

I think this is the most eloquent statement yet of the nature of the concerns I have about any internal solution.

It would still be very useful, even at what seems to be quite a late point, for those advocating an internal solution to set out the counter-case...

cheers
Jordan

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan@internetnz.net.nz
Skype: jordancarter

To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.

_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship