[Chapter-delegates] [IANAxfer] [Internet Policy] An initial proposalregarding IANA development

Wed Apr 2 06:55:17 PDT 2014

Thank you Veni. Can you please direct me to the link for the Accountability Framework the Dutch ccTLD signed?

best regards
Carlos Raul

ISOC Costa Rica

El 31/03/2014, a las 16:42, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> escribió:

> 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. 
> It is up to the ccTLD to decide what's acceptable for them. 
> 
> Best,
> Veni 
> 
> On 03/31/14 18:08, Burkov Dmitry wrote:
>> imho - I don't think that it is acceptable to sign standardized ageements for ccTLDs
>> 
>> What is ICANN - and what is real community?
>> 
>> Dmitry
>> On 31 Mar 2014, at 18:51, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Vint, 
>>> 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: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/cctlds
>>> 
>>> One may notice that the form of the agreements have changed through the years. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 03/31/14 05:42, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>>> 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). 
>>>> 
>>>> vint
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:22 AM, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>>>> Patrik, Seun, et al,
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.)
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> Steve
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 31, 2014, at 4:10 AM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 31 mar 2014, at 03:57, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 30 mar 2014, at 13:49, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think personally one could think of a model where we have the various responsibilities layered:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A. Primary layer:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A.1. ICANN (as the party running the IANA function) signs an AOC with each body that asks for IANA services.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> B. Secondary layer:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am wondering how this differ from Item A2.1 that you mentioned above?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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...
>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> C. Tertiary layer:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That way, at least via A.1 and B.1 we get a mesh of accountability agreements that                                                     should ensure that things works.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Patrik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Best, 
>>> Veni Markovski
>>> http://www.veni.com
>>> https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski
>>> https://twitter.com/veni
>>> 
>>> The opinions expressed above are those of the 
>>> author, not of any organizations, associated 
>>> with or related to him in any given way. 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IANAxfer mailing list
>>> IANAxfer at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best, 
> Veni Markovski
> http://www.veni.com
> https://www.facebook.com/venimarkovski
> https://twitter.com/veni
> 
> The opinions expressed above are those of the 
> author, not of any organizations, associated 
> with or related to him in any given way. 
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140402/b67e2263/attachment.htm>