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

Avri Doria <> Tue, 13 October 2015 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DAA1A0372 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.465
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDdZZ_EAmy8n for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E05E1A0370 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9DI5L6p009632 for <>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:05:21 -0400
Received: (qmail 4201 invoked by uid 0); 13 Oct 2015 18:05:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 13 Oct 2015 18:05:21 -0000
References: <> <>
From: Avri Doria <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Organization: Technicalities
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:05:17 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 151013-0, 10/13/2015), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
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: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:05:25 -0000


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.

>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.


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.