Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles
- To: Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-osc-ops] Conflicting Language on Staff Roles
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:59:06 -0400
To follow up on my oral comments on the importance of keeping staff
from becoming participants ...
During the course of the FastFlux WG, before the initial Chair, Mikey
O'Conner decided for reasons of his own to end his involvement, and
before I too, decided, for reasons of my own, to end my involvement,
and prior to the point in time when Avri became the interim or acting
Chair * , there was a recommendation made by a participant, who
incidentally was the GNSO Council's Liaison, and who, for reasons of
his own, regularly reported to the Council that no process problems
existed in the conduct of the Working Group ** , THAT ALL REGISTRARS
BE REQUIRED TO STAFF THEIR OPERATIONS 24/7/365.
The policy was a recommendation to change the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement. It was understood by all the Working Group participants to
have cost consequences highly adverse to almost all non-shell, and
non-highly automated registrars. The rational for the 24/7/365
proposal was that bag guys worked all hours, therefore registars had
to staff their operations with staff sufficiently sophisticated to
correctly, and without liability, performing takedown requests, 24/7/365.
The ICANN Staffer assigned in a support function to the Fast Flux PDP
Working Group and styled as a security expert joined the GNSO Council
Liaison in vigorous advocacy of this proposal.
Overlooking the issues that the RAA does not require registrars to
accept credit cards, and therefore the fraud risk of the credit card
industry, fraudulent registrations for the purposes of creating Fast
Flux Hosting Systems (FFHS) or individual resources for FFHS, and the
RAA does not require registrars to provide a web with automated domain
creation or NS record modification capabilities (or the same
functional capabilities through automated email, or other means), and
the tremendous correlation of FFHS registrations and specific
registrars, the ICANN Staffer advocated a change to the RAA to obtain
a 24/7/365 staffing liability for all registrars.
I want this clearly understood. Changes to Consensus Policy only arise
from the Consensus forming body. ICANN is not a Stakeholder in the
ICANN. The opinions of the receptionist at Marina del Ray, General
Counsel, CEO, and each Board member individually and collectively,
including the Board Chair, have no authority, arise from no
Stakeholder, and cannot affect Consensus Policy formation.
I appreciate the comments during the call by Liz, that some staff have
domain specific expertise. However, no appeal to authority may be
offered as a substitute for the Consensus Process of the Stakeholders
in developing Consensus Policy. There are more than enough problems of
accountability and transparency without adding Letters of Marque for
individuals with very high opinions of their acumen and awareness,
particularly those who can't tell a hawk from a handsaw.
* Communications to the then GNSO Council Chair functioning as the
Interim Chair of the FastFlux PDP Working Group did not successfully
convey the process issue represented here, and to the best of my
recollection my problem statement was dismissed as "personality
** It is possible there may exist a less accurate rapporteur than Mike
Rodenbaugh, in theory.