<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Thank you very much Alejandro!<div><br></div><div>Carlos Raul</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>El 02/04/2014, a las 08:18, Alejandro Pisanty <<a href="mailto:apisanty@gmail.com">apisanty@gmail.com</a>> escribió:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Carlos,<div><br></div><div>the accountability framework for .nl (Netherlands) is in <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds/nl/nl-icann-af-28jun07-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds/nl/nl-icann-af-28jun07-en.pdf</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>The whole collection is at <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds">http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds</a></div><div><br></div><div>An important point that comes up when you study these documents is to recognize that a lot of creativity and innovation has been at play (going from the idea of strict, equal bilateral obligations in contracts) to a variety of legal instruments that serve all parties; some of them - including the Affirmation of Commitments - aren't strictly even bilateral instruments, but synchronized unilateral declarations.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It is also important to recognize that accountability is not an invention of today or yesterday; it has been a requirement for ICANN from the start. Teams like the ATRT's in which you have served have built many of the constructs that provide for increased accounatibility, including clearer definitions as to whom the parties can be held accuntable.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We now also need a clearer requirement of accountability in the inverse sense. Any party that can demand accountability should be able to provide at least a bit of its own.</div><div><br></div><div>Alejandro Pisanty</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Carlos Gutierrez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com" target="_blank">carlosraulg@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Thank you Veni. Can you please direct me to the link for the Accountability Framework the Dutch ccTLD signed?<div>
<br></div><div>best regards</div><div>Carlos Raul</div><div><br></div><div>ISOC Costa Rica</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>El 31/03/2014, a las 16:42, Veni Markovski <<a href="mailto:veni@veni.com" target="_blank">veni@veni.com</a>> escribió:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Good thing is - the agreements are public, and everyone can see
them, however they differ - e.g. the Russian ccTLD has exchanged
letters with ICANN, while the Netherlands has signed an
Accountability Framework. <br>
It is up to the ccTLD to decide what's acceptable for them. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Veni <br>
<br>
<div>On 03/31/14 18:08, Burkov Dmitry wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
imho - I don't think that it is acceptable to sign standardized
ageements for ccTLDs
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What is ICANN - and what is real community?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Dmitry<br>
<div>
<div>On 31 Mar 2014, at 18:51, Veni Markovski <<a href="mailto:veni@veni.com" target="_blank">veni@veni.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Vint, <br>
Indeed, some of the ccTLDs do that - they seek for some
agreement with ICANN. This is all public information,
and the agreements can be found here: <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds</a><br>
<br>
One may notice that the form of the agreements have
changed through the years. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div>On 03/31/14 05:42, Vint Cerf
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">ICANN mistakenly tried to insist on
agreements with ccTLD operators and that provoked a
lot of tension, so Steve's position is consistent with
experience. Personally, I think the ccTLD operators
would be wise to seek such an instrument to reinforce
their roles in the operation of the Internet (and it
would also help with cryptographic control of changes
to the root zone).
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>vint</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:22
AM, Steve Crocker <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@shinkuro.com" target="_blank">steve@shinkuro.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>Patrik, Seun, et al,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here’s a small detail worth thinking about.
Although some ccTLDs have agreements with
ICANN, many do not. Further, many ccTLDs are
not members of the ccNSO, the Supporting
Organization that represents the ccTLDs within
ICANN. None of this matters when it comes to
providing each ccTLD with updates to its
portion of the root zone. ICANN serves
*every* ccTLD, even those that operate in
locations the U.S. Government imposes trade
restrictions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is the way it’s been since the
inception of ICANN. I don’t see any reason
this needs to change. I would not envision
ICANN *requiring* any sort of agreement with
each of the ccTLDs. (We have sometimes sought
such an agreement and may do so in the future,
but it will not be a requirement.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Re the arrangements with Verisign, I would
expect the adjustments to be only the minimum
that’s required. I would expect their
operational role and ICANN’s operational re
updates and publishing of the root zone and
the creation and use of DNSSEC keys to remain
the same. It’s the *stewardship* not the
actual operation that’s the subject of
discussion.</div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Steve</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</font></span>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On Mar 31, 2014, at 4:10 AM, Patrik
Fältström <<a href="mailto:patrik@frobbit.se" target="_blank">patrik@frobbit.se</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">On
31 mar 2014, at 03:57, Seun Ojedeji
<<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at
10:22 PM, Patrik Fältström <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:patrik@frobbit.se" target="_blank">patrik@frobbit.se</a>></span>
wrote:</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On 30 mar
2014, at
13:49, Patrick
Ryan <<a href="mailto:patrickryan@google.com" target="_blank">patrickryan@google.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div>I think
personally one
could think of a
model where we
have the various
responsibilities
layered:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A. Primary
layer:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A.1. ICANN (as
the party running
the IANA function)
signs an AOC with
each body that
asks for IANA
services.</div>
<div>A.2. ICANN to
be able to provide
the service
required signs
whatever
AOC/MOU/Contract
needed with
Verisign and
whoever else that
have to be
involved, so that
ICANN can deliver
whatever it
promises under
A.1.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Unless i am
forgetting/missing
something, I think
this part is already
inplace, and there may
be no need to have to
repeat the signing
process(re-call the
scope of those who
require the IANA
service is quite
broad). The only
aspect which perhaps
needs to be updated is
the relationship
between ICANN and
Verisign (since
verisign contract is
with the USG). So
ICANN needs to sign a
contract with Verisign
(just as he already
have signed contract
with other registries)<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
There is today a cooperative
agreement between NTIA and
Verisign that contain things I do
believe are related to the root
zone management. Those details in
that agreement should, I think, be
replaced by a contract between
ICANN and Verisign. This is not
these operational actions that
Verisign do are to be moved
elsewhere (to IANA). But if the
basis for the discussion is to not
change operations of the root zone
management, then I would like to
see ICANN take over the pieces of
the Cooperative Agreement related
to the root zone management.</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>B. Secondary
layer:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>B.1. ICANN signs
whatever paperwork
with the parties
that for example
uses the parameters
that are allocated
according to the
policies set up
under category A.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>I am wondering how
this differ from Item
A2.1 that you mentioned
above?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
B1 has to do with for example the
registries for each TLD be able to
get an agreement with ICANN. In
the same way as each organisation
getting any other parameter from
ICANN (i.e. the RIRs, each entity
that have something in the IANA
registry). This for the protocol
parameters have to be discussed
somewhat more whether it is for
example for most of them IAB that
is the other end of the agreement,
ISOC or whether it is really each
individual. For PEN it could be
the organisation. For character
sets...</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>C. Tertiary
layer:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That way, at
least via A.1 and
B.1 we get a mesh of
accountability
agreements that
should ensure that
things works.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Speaking about
accountability, i think
the bylaw should drive
the accountability
process. The role of the
board needs to be
reviewed. Now i know
they always say board
members represent the
interest of the
organisation. Yes i
agree, however i believe
the interest of the
organisation should be
in the bylaw and board
should respect such. Now
the content of the bylaw
should respect the PDP
of ICANN. It is well
know that the PDP of
ICANN has a bottom up
approach hence the
community interest is
represented.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>So for me, i think
more work needs to be
done in reviewing the
exiting bylaw and
ensuring it holds the
board members
accountable and then the
board members holds the
organisation (in this
case the CEO)
accountable in an open
and transparent manner.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>But to whom are they
accountable? I was more thinking
of to whom the accountability was.
But of course you talk about the
internal implementation of the
accountability and that is also
important discussion.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Patrik</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>_______________________________________________<br>
To manage your ISOC subscriptions or
unsubscribe,<br>
please log into the ISOC Member Portal:<br>
<a href="https://portal.isoc.org/" target="_blank">https://portal.isoc.org/</a><br>
Then choose Interests &
Subscriptions from the My Account menu.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are
automatically subscribed<br>
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with
the Internet Society<br>
Chapter Portal (AMS): <a href="https://portal.isoc.org/" target="_blank">https://portal.isoc.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): <a href="https://portal.isoc.org/" target="_blank">https://portal.isoc.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Best,
Veni Markovski
<a href="http://www.veni.com/" target="_blank">http://www.veni.com</a>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski</a>
<a href="https://twitter.com/veni" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/veni</a>
The opinions expressed above are those of the
author, not of any organizations, associated
with or related to him in any given way. </pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
IANAxfer mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org" target="_blank">IANAxfer@elists.isoc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer" target="_blank">https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Best,
Veni Markovski
<a href="http://www.veni.com/" target="_blank">http://www.veni.com</a>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski</a>
<a href="https://twitter.com/veni" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/veni</a>
The opinions expressed above are those of the
author, not of any organizations, associated
with or related to him in any given way. </pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed<br>to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society<br>Chapter Portal (AMS): <a href="https://portal.isoc.org/" target="_blank">https://portal.isoc.org</a></blockquote>
</div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed<br>
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society<br>
Chapter Portal (AMS): <a href="https://portal.isoc.org/" target="_blank">https://portal.isoc.org</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br>
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty<br>Facultad de Química UNAM<br>Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico<br>+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD<br>+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475<br>Blog: <a href="http://pisanty.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://pisanty.blogspot.com</a><br>
LinkedIn: <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty</a><br>Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614</a><br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/apisanty" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/apisanty</a><br>---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, <a href="http://www.isoc.org/" target="_blank">http://www.isoc.org</a><br>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>