Hi, I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty category the new Category is Separability. In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for the Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the contract for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of the IETF capability. Other principles such as stabilty mean this can't just happen willy nilly, but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen. Or perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has. while there are several ways to do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the means. And the new bullets in accountability - There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress. Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical system or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be an accessible and relaible mean of redress. - We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders? The policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users? Accountabilty must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the stakeholders, but that probably needs to be further defined. Do we mean the multiplicity of stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of stakeholders? Some other model? The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of solution we might come up with. thanks avri
Is it possible to understand what are the boundaries or limits of the IANA contract that should not be crossed at all in the transition design? I am thinking from outward to inwards... On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty category
the new Category is Separability.
In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for the Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the contract for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of the IETF capability. Other principles such as stabilty mean this can't just happen willy nilly, but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen. Or perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has. while there are several ways to do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the means.
And the new bullets in accountability
- There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress. Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical system or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be an accessible and relaible mean of redress.
- We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders? The policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users? Accountabilty must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the stakeholders, but that probably needs to be further defined. Do we mean the multiplicity of stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of stakeholders? Some other model?
The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of solution we might come up with.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
I think those are defined in the NTIA requirement with perhaps the biggest one being the no governmental/intergovernmental replacement. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Oct 2014 01:55, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to understand what are the boundaries or limits of the IANA contract that should not be crossed at all in the transition design? I am thinking from outward to inwards...
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty category
the new Category is Separability.
In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for the Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the contract for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of the IETF capability. Other principles such as stabilty mean this can't just happen willy nilly, but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen. Or perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has. while there are several ways to do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the means.
And the new bullets in accountability
- There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress. Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical system or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be an accessible and relaible mean of redress.
- We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders? The policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users? Accountabilty must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the stakeholders, but that probably needs to be further defined. Do we mean the multiplicity of stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of stakeholders? Some other model?
The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of solution we might come up with.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
And thats an important aspect to realize that ICANN is till registered under US Law as a non-profit corporation??? That may bring us back to that very old discussion that how is IANA impacted if it were to remain under ICANN and its longstanding US non-profit laws abiding situation? Opening offices around the world doesn't move ICANN out of US Law bindings. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I think those are defined in the NTIA requirement with perhaps the biggest one being the no governmental/intergovernmental replacement.
Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Oct 2014 01:55, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to understand what are the boundaries or limits of the IANA contract that should not be crossed at all in the transition design? I am thinking from outward to inwards...
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty category
the new Category is Separability.
In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for the Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the contract for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of the IETF capability. Other principles such as stabilty mean this can't just happen willy nilly, but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen. Or perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has. while there are several ways to do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the means.
And the new bullets in accountability
- There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress. Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical system or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be an accessible and relaible mean of redress.
- We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders? The policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users? Accountabilty must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the stakeholders, but that probably needs to be further defined. Do we mean the multiplicity of stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of stakeholders? Some other model?
The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of solution we might come up with.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
No matter how attractive it may be to think about subjecting ICANN to the laws of every country around the world, I actually think that is a bad idea for everyone. That said, no matter where ICANN is incorporated, it can always agree that disputes will be resolved in accordance with the law of a specific country and in a designated physical venue. 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 10/23/14, 11:27 AM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
<html> And thats an important aspect to realize that ICANN is till registered under US Law as a non-profit corporation??? That may bring us back to that very old discussion that how is IANA impacted if it were to remain under ICANN and its longstanding US non-profit laws abiding situation? Opening offices around the world doesn't move ICANN out of US Law bindings.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I think those are defined in the NTIA requirement with perhaps the biggest one being the no governmental/intergovernmental replacement.
Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Oct 2014 01:55, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to understand what are the boundaries or limits of the IANA contract that should not be crossed at all in the transition design? I am thinking from outward to inwards...
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty category
the new Category is Separability.
In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for the Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the contract for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of the IETF capability. Other principles such as stabilty mean this can't just happen willy nilly, but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen. Or perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has. while there are several ways to do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the means.
And the new bullets in accountability
- There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress. Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical system or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be an accessible and relaible mean of redress.
- We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders? The policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users? Accountabilty must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the stakeholders, but that probably needs to be further defined. Do we mean the multiplicity of stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of stakeholders? Some other model?
The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of solution we might come up with.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi fzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5Fn WFeL9EtUSw&s=iaEAmidD7CXU_olwJrvKpeWdLA3ECPEGss51G1NBSIE&e=
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernance. blogspot.com_&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8 TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=Bt QZJo9jtwnmPiK3vlMyFvZSR5PX07JJ8KBpzdU46fQ&e= Follow my Tweets: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadbaj wa&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=W-ys1lIOE4xND YYZ8HVggftZfXnK6Hkv4ErAhtT0P6w&e= _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi fzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5Fn WFeL9EtUSw&s=iaEAmidD7CXU_olwJrvKpeWdLA3ECPEGss51G1NBSIE&e=
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernance.bl ogspot.com_&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=BtQZJo9j twnmPiK3vlMyFvZSR5PX07JJ8KBpzdU46fQ&e= Follow my Tweets: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadbajwa &d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WD DkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=W-ys1lIOE4xNDYYZ8HV ggftZfXnK6Hkv4ErAhtT0P6w&e= _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6 X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9E tUSw&s=iaEAmidD7CXU_olwJrvKpeWdLA3ECPEGss51G1NBSIE&e=
Lets say that there is an agreement to that, where and how do we find the balance? What will be the preference management mechanism? There are a whole set of governance and legal problems here that are just not comprehendible in the current organizational structure and circumstances. One way is to forget all these debates and deal with IANA to be a separate independent entity and contract its relationships with ICANN and any other future organizations? Whats the possible governance structure then? Private or Public? Compliance and enforcement would be the kill switch approach? On whose call? Accountability? How? On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
No matter how attractive it may be to think about subjecting ICANN to the laws of every country around the world, I actually think that is a bad idea for everyone. That said, no matter where ICANN is incorporated, it can always agree that disputes will be resolved in accordance with the law of a specific country and in a designated physical venue.
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 10/23/14, 11:27 AM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
<html> And thats an important aspect to realize that ICANN is till registered under US Law as a non-profit corporation??? That may bring us back to that very old discussion that how is IANA impacted if it were to remain under ICANN and its longstanding US non-profit laws abiding situation? Opening offices around the world doesn't move ICANN out of US Law bindings.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I think those are defined in the NTIA requirement with perhaps the biggest one being the no governmental/intergovernmental replacement.
Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Oct 2014 01:55, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to understand what are the boundaries or limits of the IANA contract that should not be crossed at all in the transition design? I am thinking from outward to inwards...
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty category
the new Category is Separability.
In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for the Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the contract for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of the IETF capability. Other principles such as stabilty mean this can't just happen willy nilly, but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen. Or perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has. while there are several ways to do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the means.
And the new bullets in accountability
- There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress. Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical system or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be an accessible and relaible mean of redress.
- We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders? The policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users? Accountabilty must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the stakeholders, but that probably needs to be further defined. Do we mean the multiplicity of stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of stakeholders? Some other model?
The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of solution we might come up with.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi fzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5Fn WFeL9EtUSw&s=iaEAmidD7CXU_olwJrvKpeWdLA3ECPEGss51G1NBSIE&e=
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernance. blogspot.com_&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8 TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=Bt QZJo9jtwnmPiK3vlMyFvZSR5PX07JJ8KBpzdU46fQ&e= Follow my Tweets: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadbaj wa&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=W-ys1lIOE4xND YYZ8HVggftZfXnK6Hkv4ErAhtT0P6w&e= _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOi fzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5Fn WFeL9EtUSw&s=iaEAmidD7CXU_olwJrvKpeWdLA3ECPEGss51G1NBSIE&e=
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernance.bl ogspot.com_&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=BtQZJo9j twnmPiK3vlMyFvZSR5PX07JJ8KBpzdU46fQ&e= Follow my Tweets: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadbajwa &d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WD DkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=W-ys1lIOE4xNDYYZ8HV ggftZfXnK6Hkv4ErAhtT0P6w&e= _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6 X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9E tUSw&s=iaEAmidD7CXU_olwJrvKpeWdLA3ECPEGss51G1NBSIE&e=
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
that¹s an approach. I think it is more complicated than necessary, and I don¹t see what it accomplishes that we can¹t do through an SLA Council and contracts. 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 10/23/14, 11:51 AM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
<html> Lets say that there is an agreement to that, where and how do we find the balance? What will be the preference management mechanism? There are a whole set of governance and legal problems here that are just not comprehendible in the current organizational structure and circumstances.
One way is to forget all these debates and deal with IANA to be a separate independent entity and contract its relationships with ICANN and any other future organizations? Whats the possible governance structure then? Private or Public? Compliance and enforcement would be the kill switch approach? On whose call? Accountability? How?
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
No matter how attractive it may be to think about subjecting ICANN to the laws of every country around the world, I actually think that is a bad idea for everyone. That said, no matter where ICANN is incorporated, it can always agree that disputes will be resolved in accordance with the law of a specific country and in a designated physical venue.
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 10/23/14, 11:27 AM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
<html> And thats an important aspect to realize that ICANN is till registered under US Law as a non-profit corporation??? That may bring us back to that very old discussion that how is IANA impacted if it were to remain under ICANN and its longstanding US non-profit laws abiding situation? Opening offices around the world doesn't move ICANN out of US Law bindings.
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I think those are defined in the NTIA requirement with perhaps the biggest one being the no governmental/intergovernmental replacement.
Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Oct 2014 01:55, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to understand what are the boundaries or limits of the IANA contract that should not be crossed at all in the transition design? I am thinking from outward to inwards...
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty category
the new Category is Separability.
In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for the Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the contract for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of the IETF capability. Other principles such as stabilty mean this can't just happen willy nilly, but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen. Or perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has. while there are several ways to do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the means.
And the new bullets in accountability
- There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress. Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical system or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be an accessible and relaible mean of redress.
- We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders? The policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users? Accountabilty must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the stakeholders, but that probably needs to be further defined. Do we mean the multiplicity of stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of stakeholders? Some other model?
The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of solution we might come up with.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail ma n_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJF Oi fzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5 Fn WFeL9EtUSw&s=iaEAmidD7CXU_olwJrvKpeWdLA3ECPEGss51G1NBSIE&e=
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernanc e. blogspot.com_&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8M o8 TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s= Bt QZJo9jtwnmPiK3vlMyFvZSR5PX07JJ8KBpzdU46fQ&e= Follow my Tweets: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadb aj wa&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYa hO P8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=W-ys1lIOE4x ND YYZ8HVggftZfXnK6Hkv4ErAhtT0P6w&e= _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail ma n_listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJF Oi fzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5 Fn WFeL9EtUSw&s=iaEAmidD7CXU_olwJrvKpeWdLA3ECPEGss51G1NBSIE&e=
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernance. bl ogspot.com_&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8Tj Dm rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=BtQZJo 9j twnmPiK3vlMyFvZSR5PX07JJ8KBpzdU46fQ&e= Follow my Tweets: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadbaj wa &d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8 WD DkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL9EtUSw&s=W-ys1lIOE4xNDYYZ8 HV ggftZfXnK6Hkv4ErAhtT0P6w&e= _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_ listinfo_cwg-2Dstewardship&d=AAICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifz m6 X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=Jm2G3_5fr-Xoq9Xt7cNeypOFGNDZDq5FnWFeL 9E tUSw&s=iaEAmidD7CXU_olwJrvKpeWdLA3ECPEGss51G1NBSIE&e=
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__internetsgovernance.bl ogspot.com_&d=AAIBaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDm rxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=pCqoKJkQBAoHqkcTsoY2jB7oHVqcS60uK_WJOk49R90&s=VoGLtD_Z 2MNmtEysqXGk3mHVpCST2-z6E4BjVL3Ji8Q&e= Follow my Tweets: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_fouadbajwa &d=AAIBaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WD DkMr4k&m=pCqoKJkQBAoHqkcTsoY2jB7oHVqcS60uK_WJOk49R90&s=QexCqVJp2xsHc_6gpJf 9nXezpT4AnPMYG2nwGMYa-kA&e=
In regard to ICANN being organized under US law (or, more precisely, the non-profit corporation law of the state of California, as all US corporations are organized under state law) -- There have been suggestions, voiced most recently during the LA GAC meeting, that the IANA transition is insufficient because at the end ICANN will still be a US non-profit and that therefore it should be reorganized as an entity under "International law". But there is in fact no body of International law under which ICANN could be chartered; the closest one could come to that would be to establish it (or a successor entity) as an Intergovernmental organization having aspects of sovereign immunity -- but the NTIA transition principles make clear that this is not an acceptable option. If the IANA functions or some subset of them are placed outside of ICANN then we can debate under the laws of what jurisdiction the entity exercising them should be organized. If there is a decision to continue to have a party/counterparty arrangement for a revised IANA contract, with some entity replacing the USG/DOC as counterparty, then we can discuss what choice of law provision should be in that contract so far as interpretation and enforcement go. But if ICANN is to remain a multistakeholder private sector entity then it must be organized under the laws of some nation and it will continue to conduct its activities through contractual arrangements specifying a choice of jurisdiction. So even if it were to reorganize under Swiss law, for example, its contracts might remain subject to US enforcement depending on the choice of law provision in its contracts. What is to be gained by a movement away from the US to some other jurisdiction? The only objection I have heard voiced to the present arrangement is that as a US entity ICANN is subject to the US Treasury's OFAC list that prohibits business with designated terrorist or criminal organizations. So ISIS and mafia-style entities cannot be contracted parties or applicants for new gTLDs -- is that an issue to concern us? Remember also that ICANN remains a signatory to the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) with the USG, which requires it to remain a non-profit entity headquartered in California. While there has been speculation that ICANN might exercise its right to withdraw from the AOC post-transition, there is no realistic possibility that it will do so during the life of this CWG. So any discussion of ICANN's legal status by this CWG must be bounded by the realities that the NTIA will not accept a transition plan that proposes an intergovernmental organization and that the AOC requires ICANN to maintain a US HQ. One note: The California non-profit law will arise in the separate CCWG on Enhanced Accountability, insofar that ICANN has taken the position in regard to the highest level of accountability that now exists for it, the Independent Review Panel, that its findings are merely advisory and not binding and that CA law prohibits any outside third party from having the power to override Board decisions. But that is largely an issue to be confronted by the other CCWG, not this CWG. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:28 AM To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: cwg-stewardship@icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Comments on principles And thats an important aspect to realize that ICANN is till registered under US Law as a non-profit corporation??? That may bring us back to that very old discussion that how is IANA impacted if it were to remain under ICANN and its longstanding US non-profit laws abiding situation? Opening offices around the world doesn't move ICANN out of US Law bindings. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
I think those are defined in the NTIA requirement with perhaps the biggest one being the no governmental/intergovernmental replacement.
Cheers!
sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Oct 2014 01:55, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to understand what are the boundaries or limits of the IANA contract that should not be crossed at all in the transition design? I am thinking from outward to inwards...
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I see at least 1 other category and another entry for the Accountabilty category
the new Category is Separability.
In order to reproduce the NTIA contract, it has to be possible for the Naming policy groups of ICANN to become dissatisfied and move the contract for the function elsewhere. This is the correlate of the IETF capability. Other principles such as stabilty mean this can't just happen willy nilly, but there must be some sort of periodic opportunity this to happen. Or perhaps a 6 month clause like the IETF has. while there are several ways to do this, I think it critical that the plan include the possiblity and the means.
And the new bullets in accountability
- There needs to be a mechanism for an enforceable means of redress. Whether it is achieved by binding arbitration, some sort of juridical system or a yet to be named capability, it has to be possible for there to be an accessible and relaible mean of redress.
- We need to decide to whom it is accountable. The stakeholders? The policy process? the registries? the registrants? the users? Accountabilty must be accountabilty to someone. I beleive it is the stakeholders, but that probably needs to be further defined. Do we mean the multiplicity of stakeholder groups ICANN has? Or do we mean to a Tunis Agenda model of stakeholders? Some other model?
The answers to the principle questions will say a lot about the kind of solution we might come up with.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Burr, Becky -
Fouad Bajwa -
Phil Corwin -
Seun Ojedeji