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 “consumer trust” role would be yet another. Apart from these two concepts, all of the assigned roles and responsibilities appear in ICANN’s 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://www.avast.com/antivirus