On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 06:38:01PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
board"? i mean why should one be comfortable that the "community board" will be more accountable than the current ICANN board?
It seems to me that there is sometimes conflation in our discussion. The ICANN board has a manifold job, and as a result many people are worried about "accountability" over the IANA function in a way I can't understand. (Note that I'm not suggesting Seun is making that conflation; just that this question isn't fully explicit, and depending on one's filter one might interpret the question differently.) The IANA function is really extremely small. It's a critical but basically boring book-keeping function. As near as I can tell, there have been practically no cases where there was any accusation that IANA did not do exactly what it was supposed to do. There were historically some complaints that IANA didn't act expeditiously, and there were _lots_ of historic complaints that an IANA function was being used by ICANN to try to impose ICANN policies. The former is an SLA issue; the latter is actually a policy matter with enforcement attempts in the policy side of the organization, and is not actually an issue with IANA at all. So in my opinion, accountability _for IANA_ would help with the SLA stuff (and also with the case that IANA "goes rogue") but would not help with the policy issues. Does that match the accountability concerns others have? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com