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

Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> Tue, 13 October 2015 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8F21A8902 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WWPZc7I31_TM for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EF8A1A8900 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wieq12 with SMTP id q12so47612006wie.1 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Dw5L9WMAenyek1WaGWfZ+W2hnQxKwj4RsQgM1j2cX3o=; b=gO7ZO9j9+qQScA0VLakaeyfqG5JO8/9K3GSXdnOq44y3qg4xLPXhcKmz3ilUyJ9J6s BGXlgpxQRIfOQf37QGw0sHoMVkesH4KvR63gZAbgLxhc1hF2PlSCfg5qc8hS+Hl2eYMy MGeWfVZ8sVlDGnOLe22cVIAfqutEz1bvQXvrJ0Fae62YJ9vT4cflmFGNsu98M+KNrr0e 0daNZEhaw1sAde4YNz+ch7EmbYnVxST71tYSSc73NgozhY450PvANVMRLnlIWeprI9Ge P9+08TkjQaG2eYyLhfb1WcOnK9Ov4/hdQkr87UbYRXN7ujQaL7fkIqAaNL7F+fdG/Qid VY0A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.23.165 with SMTP id n5mr4752449wif.26.1444763442745; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.171.170 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.171.170 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <FBE2CBC8-D4EA-4E4B-9FFB-A294659B341C@gmail.com>
References: <56181181.50002@gmail.com> <D23F19BE.27A31A%Jonne.soininen@nsn.com> <561D47DD.2010704@acm.org> <FBE2CBC8-D4EA-4E4B-9FFB-A294659B341C@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 20:10:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD_dc6j2KXG6snrOSQUXuf0bhksdYbJpDvZS7=K-9CKd8cnRJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f8388f3ca178f0522013358
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/zPaQ7CMXq8ts-mng056ASSM7hDQ>
Cc: ianaplan@ietf.org, avri <avri@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] What's happening at ICANN?
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:10:47 -0000

Actually a high percentage of the CCWG proposal has been about what happens
when a board member is asked to vacate his/her position (or perform some
other action) by the community and such board member doesn't want to.

There is really no believe that a board member asked to leave on valid
reasons could comply in respect of existing process. That is what I think
is the difference with IETF which hold trust as a strong virtue in its
processes. If MS was highly based on legal formalities, I wonder whether if
it would have survive this long.

Some could say it's perhaps because one counts money than the other.

Cheers!
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 13 Oct 2015 19:56, "Bob Hinden" <bob.hinden@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Avri,
>
> > On Oct 13, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; 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.
>
>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
>
> The IETF appeals process is actually used periodically.  Appeals and their
> resolution are listed at:
>
>    https://www.ietf.org/iesg/appeal.html
>    https://www.iab.org/appeals/
>
> On a related topic, the procedure to recall sitting IESG, IAB, and IAOC
> members is defined in RFC7437.  See:
>
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437
>
> 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.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> >
> >> 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.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ianaplan mailing list
> > Ianaplan@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ianaplan mailing list
> Ianaplan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan
>
>