Good evening CW, Sorry 2b is not correct . Registries that originally applied for a "closed generic " have now been required to change their business model to an "open generic" in any particular vertical. Only one, Scripps' .food delegation has slipped through the net. http://domainincite.com/?s=scripps+.food+ No Registrar is an owner of a new TLD Registry. I have agree that ICANN's scope,mandate is deliberately narrow. ICANN current mandate has nothing to do with content, but delegations into the root zone. We open up a hornets nest if we change the scope to content management/ enforcement. ICANN can currently (for each Registry contract) bring in an EBERO to manage/ enforce the contract and so must ensure TLD Registrations continue to resolve. ICANN just can't withdraw the delegation from the root zone or can it ? Regards, Phil From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson Sent: 10 November 2015 18:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Accountability Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Mission/Contract Good evening, Having listened to the debate on the CCWG conference call earlier today, may I offer a few reflections on the issue to hand: 1. insofar as this discussion is a ramification of the classic debate between IPR and ISP over intermediary liability, I suggest that will not be resolved in the ICANN context. There are other fora to address that, which may take into account 'content' and 'services' which are beyond ICANN's scope. 2. Whilst sympathising with Malcolm's narrow definition of ICANN's mandate, I think he takes his case a step or two too far. (a) there are not, in my view, 'voluntary' contractual conditions. If a TLD is delegated upon certain conditions, then those must be respected. Thus I concur with Alain's insistence that such conditions shall be enforceable. (Particularly if they are formal 'Public Interest Conditions, aka PICs'.) Also, please bear in mind that the general obligation on ICANN to respect applicable local law (Article 4 of the Articles of Incorporation) extends to all its contracted parties. (b) ICANN and the Registry/Registrar applicants for new gTLDs have allowed new TLDs in otherwise strictly regulated sectors under applicable local laws. As was once said 'nobody asked you . ', but having done so, those Registries (and their Registrar owners) have placed themselves in the mainstream of the regulation of content for the benefit of users and the general public in the sectors concerned. Thus, either ICANN has to enforce conditions in those DNS markets that (pace Malcolm) go well beyond the narrow ICANN mandate, or ICANN and those Registries/Registrars should never have got themselves into those putative DNS markets in the first place. 3. From a more general economic point of view, I expect these issues to become really, really, serious because of the low take-up and problematic viability of numbers of the new gTLDs. I expect that the pressure will be on to apply restrictions and obligations as flexibly as possible for the sake of the survival of otherwise questionable excursions into niches of the DNS, where public policy issues might be perceived as burdensome if not irrelevant. Just a few thoughts CW On 10 Nov 2015, at 14:27, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote: On 10/11/2015 12:25, Andrew Sullivan wrote: If ICANN were to attempt the regulation of the content of web sites, the means by which it would do so would be i) to write into Registry agreements a duty to ensure that that content does not appear, and to take enforcement actions if it does; and ii) in the event that the Registry fails to enforce the prohibition of certain content, to enforce its contract against the Registry This can be done without removing the delegation from the root zone. How? ICANN has basically two sticks at its disposal: it can sue people, or it can remove the delegation. Apart from that, it's hard to see what force ICANN has to bring to bear. You answer your own question. If someone has contracted with ICANN to do something, ICANN can insist upon it. It may sue if necessary, but usually this won't be necessary because it will be obvious that if it does it will win. ICANN should be prevented from entering into an agreement whose purpose is to achieve something that it is outside ICANN's Mission to seek to achieve. If we say otherwise, and allow ICANN to do anything But I think that's a distraction, because I reject the premise that ICANN would be in a position to write those terms into the agreements in the first place, because that would be ICANN stepping beyond its mission, unless you think that such policies could be reasonably covered by these terms: . For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability: . That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi- stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems. Andrew, I think you have misunderstood what is being proposed by those who disagree with me. What our colleagues are proposing is to override this clause. They are saying that ICANN should be able to do anything allowed by the above, *plus also* to enter into and enforce agreements that go far outside what is allowed by the above. So if a Registry offers to promise that the CEO will greet Fadi every Monday morning by tapdancing in Fadi's office, then they say ICANN should be permitted to enter into that contract and enforce it, provided only that the Registry's offer was made "voluntarily" (whatever that means in practice. It seems to me that it would be hard to argue ICANN could impose the terms this way, because they wouldn't be consensus-based or bottom-up. These agreements are in addition to consensus-based bottom-up policy. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community