Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

Nov. 12, 2015

      Malcolm, your reliance on the relevance of public comments, and assertion that consensus has already been reached twice, is not compatible with the fact that the comments you refer to were received after the purported consensus was reached.   I don't think consensus can be claimed retrospectively.  I am afraid there is no consensus on these very important issues.

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Hutty
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:41 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L; Drazek, Keith; Accountability Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

Dear Co-Chairs

I think the best way of resolving this would be to note that we have ALREADY reached consensus on this TWICE (in order to publish two Draft Reports that recommended this provision), and only to assess the public comments.

Remember, either of the previous Draft Reports could have been the final outcome; we've only come back to a second and a third because of a separate issue (changing the Reference Model, twice).

When assessing the public comments, we can see overwhelming support for the inclusion of this text.

Moreover, we have found a way to at least partially address the only concerns raised in the public comment, by adding

"ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in service of its Mission."

This gives what those few who raised concerns at least part of what they want, and we have not found any consensus to go further.

I think the Co-Chairs could quite legitimately say that it is too late to open new issues now, and that we should proceed on the basis of the previously achieved consensus.

Malcolm.

On 12/11/2015 12:20, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
...
Let me add this: I see once again a disturbing tendency to ignore and override the public comments. We went through two rounds of public comment on this proposal. In both comment periods, there was overwhelming support for the prohibition on content regulation. A consensus-based process that is responsive to the community would not be asking _whether_ we need this prohibition, it would only be asking how to word it.
...

...
--MM
...

...
...
-----Original Message-----
...
...
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>
...
...
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf
...
...
Of Mueller, Milton L
...
...
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM
...
...
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>; Accountability Community
...
...
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>
...
...
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding
...
...
Mission and Contract
...
...
...
...
Keith
...
...
I don't think we have irreconcilable views, and I certainly don't see
...
...
any increase in divergence. What I see is some difficulty in
...
...
formulating the wording right so that prohibiting ICANN from
...
...
regulating other services doesn't get in the way of it regulating the services it is supposed to regulate.
...
...
...
...
Even if there is divergence, it is NOT an issue that can be avoided;
...
...
it is fundamental to ICANN's mission limitation and accountability
...
...
and I would never agree to a transition without it. We need to
...
...
resolve this, and we have to do it in WS1.
...
...
...
...
By the way, it is impossible to avoid resolving this issue. If you do
...
...
not include this prescription, you are siding with those who don't
...
...
want it to be there - and thus overriding and ignoring the views of the people who want it there.
...
...
...
...
Andrew:
...
...
...
...
...
ICANN shall have no power to act other than in accordance with,
...
...
...
and as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.
...
...
...
...
...
...
With that prohibition on ICANN going out and finding new things to
...
...
...
do, you have the explicit limitation you want.  No?
...
...
...
...
No. Paul R has addressed this. What we have now is open to too much
...
...
interpretation and is not a clear enough limitation. We need to have
...
...
a clear and explicit limitation, not a general statement that ICANN
...
...
will conform to its mission. We need to make it clear that the
...
...
mission does NOT include content regulation.
...
...
_______________________________________________
...
...
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
...
...
Community@icann.org<mailto:Community@icann.org>
...
...
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
...
_______________________________________________
...
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
...
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
...
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
...
--

            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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

=================================================================

 Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices@timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices@timewarner.com>

=================================================================

=================================================================
This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,
or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on
the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom
he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies
from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
=================================================================

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

Silver, Bradley