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

Bob Hinden <> Tue, 13 October 2015 18:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA1C1A8866 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:56:44 -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 MLpf5zitkpcX for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A68561A8881 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:54:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkas79 with SMTP id s79so12740316qka.0 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=tNmNT8PWHXtuKq3J83Qq+q8OSUGb4sNvDK/TIJshoTA=; b=xMC5/T3ezQfh+RyBDvDDN+VZ5IqwFAJ5xjAegQRkwYj+Rl42pISWaj/mWnfFuPO2/G vEnqNq1LMN73esaj/IEntqSyi/fLyKSXBz3ly/NPyAz11VJ4/fkNNE8y5jkAiYlAXc+d hr9qDtWn0SWwFu4Kk3jz35ZtAgDY4Tw6R6Ffax1YsZCsq0U283SumwTfG0rutNpWQTJ5 DE50C99WzF9qQpRrxSTqukPFabKALu29jPtfDTuRkroVd2uQHo5ZXzb2mSaIS5zB54NJ ggihRL+0Ls7Q4hcOVbHHwUjFhfbrZVSCy3oR5BZDe0GoYk79mLcmV7CvShW1gr3nD8m0 SyVA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a68mr43040148qkj.15.1444762487929; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id d66sm1731678qgd.36.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:54:46 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_794146A1-F1C2-4EB2-86FB-5BB4E431EC0C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Bob Hinden <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:54:43 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Bob Hinden <>
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: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:56:44 -0000


> On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Avri Doria <>; wrote:
> Hi,
> One essential difference is that IETF has an appeal mechanism on process
> to the Internet Society Board of Trustees.
> This is the backstop for the IETF.

The Internet Society Board of Trustees is the last step in the multi-step IETF appeals process.  The IETF appeals process is documented in RFC2026.

The IETF appeals process is actually used periodically.  Appeals and their resolution are listed at:

On a related topic, the procedure to recall sitting IESG, IAB, and IAOC members is defined in RFC7437.  See:

These processes seem to work (that is, "are running code” so to speak).  They might serve as a model for other organizations as I think they are a good example for multi-stakeholder self-governance.


>> From what I have learned in the ICANN Accountability process, the most
> legal training I have ever had, the IETF as the IETF might have trouble
> suing anyone given that is is not a legal person.  Fortunately the IETF
> does not live in an environment where suits, of either kind, are the norm.
> avri
> On 10-Oct-15 12:57, 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.
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list