Bruce
One question: The Board suggests that if language i adopted that
says “ICANN shall not impose regulations on services (i.e., any software
process that accepts connections for the Internet) that use the
Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or
provide ..." there might be some existing registry agreements that
would be "out of compliance with ICANN's
responsibilities." I'd be curious to know what the Board is
concerned with there - what parts of which registry agreements might be
affected (and made non-compliant) by this language?
With respect to that same "regulations on services" language,
the Board says that it is "unclear," and asks for "some
examples of what the CCWG believes that ICANN should and should not be
able to do."
I agree that the "services" language isn't clear at the
moment. Here's my attempt to capture the point that I think is
being made: ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly or
indirectly, via its contracts -- obligations on persons or entities
whose only connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for
Internet communication.
I think it's pretty straightforward. I use a domain name
(davidpost.com) for Internet communication. The idea -- and I think
pretty much everyone agrees with this? - is that ICANN can't impose any
obligations on me that affect how I operate the site, what content I host
or don't host, what goods or services I can or cannot offer, what billing
system I use for those goods and services, what anti-virus software I
install, ... It can't do that directly (by imposing some contract terms
on me itself) or indirectly (by getting 3d parties like the
registries or registrars to impose the obligations on me).
Registries and registrars, of course, are not entities "whose only
connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet
communication," so this clause shouldn't affect ICANN's ability to
impose obligations on them (which remains limited by other portions of
the Mission Statement).
David
David
At 02:12 AM 11/19/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello All,
The Board has been considering the CCWG Update on Progress Made In and
After ICANN54 in Dublin published on 15 Nov 2015.
The Board information call today considered the changes to the mission
statement identified in that update.
Attached is the Board's preliminary comments on the mission statement
part of the Dublin update report. As we review the remainder
of that Update, we'll send through additional comments.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.
http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************