On 2015-12-01 00:55, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:04:22PM -0500, David Post wrote:
defamation example, and my fraud example, show - that would encompass many things that we would all agree (I think) are OUTSIDE the Mission.
Surely, if ICANN takes such an action, the other accountability mechanisms that are simultaneously being created can be used to prevent such abuses? Indeed, isn't that the very point of these manifold changes?
What "other powers"? With respect, I don't think anyone could seriously think that the power to sack the Board or remove directors is remotely effective as a means of addressing the concerns in this debate, whether your concern is ICANN's overreach (as David would have it) or ICANN's failure to act (closer to Bradley's concern). Whatever be the purpose of these community powers, I don't think it can be this. The means the CCWG has constructed for addressing these issues lie in the other half of the report: the value of the Mission as guidance to the Board, the Reconsideration process, and the IRP. But they are all three entirely predicated on getting the Mission text right: unless the Mission text accurately reflects what we want ICANN to do, mere mechanisms for ensuring that ICANN honours its Mission will not help. So while I am about to argue that David's fears are misplaced, and that the Mission text does do what we need it to, he is surely right to focus on the vital necessity of getting that text right, rather than relying on some other part of the report to save us. -- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA