Hi, In this case, I do not believe we will have sufficient cause to request that the AOC be cancelled by mutual agreement. If all of the AOC concerns can't be brought into the bylaws, then they can't be said to be covered by the the By Laws. Of course ICANN can still unilaterally abandon the AOC. I also think we may need to be much more careful to make sure we have agreed upon definitions for all terms in the By Laws and not just those that belong to concepts some people are not comfortable with. I know there are some terms for which I have not been absolutely sure of the meaning and on which we have never had real dialogue. For example in an international context what do we really mean by 'promote', 'competition', and 'consumer choice'. I know I am not comfortable with the way some people define these terms. What are our criteria for these terms and for knowing when we have achieved them? How can a review decide that we have adequate global competition? How active do we need to be about promoting competition, especially in a global context with economies that have different capabilities. How much choice is sufficient consumer choice? I do not believe we have any better idea, or have had adequate dialogue and consensus on the meaning of these terms and concepts. I do believe we generally understand them as well as we understand consumer trust, but not better. I am also sure I can find lack of dialogue and ambiguity on many other terms used in the By Laws. Is that the process we must now open up? Lastly I think it is in the process of the multistakeholder AOC type reviews that we work on our evolving consensus definitions. I am certain that we now have a much deeper understanding of Accountability and Transparency after the two ATRT reviews than we did before those reviews. avri On 13-Jan-16 10:59, Burr, Becky wrote:
I understand your point Avri, but (as I said, unlike the HR issue) we have had no real dialogue on what ³consumer trust² encompasses (outside of the new gTLD review context), so it seems to me that moving the issue to WS2 is the only possible approach.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 1/12/16, 5:42 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Not sure I buy into the Xmas tree analogy, especially when trying to delineate values.
And while I have not had to make this argument in a while, I still maintain that as a vassal of the NTIA, ICANN would have been constrained to respect human rights and that the loss of NTIA forces us to take some responsibility for that as a corporation, especially in regard to an open Internet.
I still find it rather shocking and depressing that many, including our Board are fighting against human rights so hard at iCANN. Option 2b would be a travesty and 2c is just a fig leaf, better than nothing, but barely.
As for consumer trust, that may be a similar situation. NTIA has shown by its participation in the AOC how much it cares about consumer trust, and I think that if the complaints against ICANN for consumer issues got any worse than they are, we would hear about from the NTIA and it would be a consideration for any IANA renewal. I would hope that they would reject any plan that did not promise an effort to maintain and improve ours.
avri
On 12-Jan-16 16:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:08:20PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
The language on human rights would be a departure from that standard, and the introduction of a generalized ³consumer trust² role would be yet another. Apart from these two concepts, all of the assigned roles and responsibilities appear in ICANN¹s existing Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and the White Paper itself. I think the above is an important argument, and it takes on more importance when we reflect on previous observations from the NTIA that this accountability work ought not to be an opportunity to remake ICANN.
Best regards,
A
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir us&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8 WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9mx-BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=90feHGO6z1UakNUKm 1puqej2hiSN0i1qKEBXIp7F1sY&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9mx -BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=r-pEdrcIahOTlTQ9i-oail-6pa2AEY55jJwnzefh8U8&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus