Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 10 October 2015 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37DF1B4697 for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZOmuUwyQICbb for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79CED1B4696 for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so117054926pad.1 for <>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lKFwwdEKHCYJ4g7u42hnCWVoR84XUVp9hBU3QWMmOk0=; b=y+o+GbicYZsnEwdGRaTxXKrzKf1QzliN8sWuAqCRtwJ5TTEILEROZZ910foNZON4uT G9ZuCl4BPMJ+KaJejRUaUfrU09gZXCJLWEo75UQpvqmV14oXgR+TH3slBo6facOL/IHq IrRCezLfFSdYQJPe6nfgMcWsgia4zRlVkS5ZqAwQOGwPdMLKbmFxMQ4Y+Aij8kTHMRi6 PuLyFzZ357grFOfjG0UY+U+DDtCKbEmMMgB25lIbvghMDVePQnuo2HCfW7A5LYlQtHSQ F0Oi+vsNZzD+DPgPSIsQ2OJAGv/KEq556a12u8ON7MGr8brbI7bUUbrKNOs2Pt0atNIb pB3Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id vy9mr24844405pbc.24.1444507480079; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id ez2sm4784448pbb.5.2015. (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 10 Oct 2015 13:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Soininen, Jonne (Nokia - FI/Espoo)" <>, "" <>
References: <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:04:29 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 20:04:42 -0000

Thanks Jonne. Yes, it helps to have a calm overview rather than a
seemingly biased media story.

I do believe that the communities that put Board members in place
should be able to remove them, with some sort of due process.


On 11/10/2015 05:57, Soininen, Jonne (Nokia - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> like Bernard and Dave said, part of the story is the press tries to spin
> an interesting story. Partly the story is that there are strong emotions
> in play at the ICANN in this topic.
> So, the topic is ICANN accountability. The claim is that as long as there
> was the NTIA contract on IANA there has been a backstop on ICANN's
> decisions, especially the board's. The theory is that if ICANN (the staff
> and the board, not the community) would do something silly NTIA could at
> least threaten to take IANA away and pressure ICANN to reconsider the
> decision get to the right path. However, with the IANA stewardship
> transition there would be no backstop anymore and potentially a future
> board could go rogue and do whatever they want disregarding the community.
> Therefore, there needs to be new accountability mechanisms.
> The main accountability mechanisms discussed have been spilling the
> complete board, removing a board member and control/veto the ICANN budget
> and bylaws changes. There is pretty much consensus that in some form or
> another these are reasonable requirements. However, the discussion is
> about what is the right enforceability mechanism. Enforcement means how
> can you legally enforce ICANN/board do something - basically, how can you
> sue ICANN if the board/staff doesn't do what the community expects it to
> do.
> In the IETF, we have a bit different approach to these things. I wouldn't
> think we would have ever the discussion the IETF community should be able
> to take the IESG or IAB to court. Interesting thought, though... ;)
> I hope this helps.
> Cheers,
> Jonne.