Dear Avri, Dear All, I am chiming into this long thread because I believe Avri's point below is very relevant, and echoes in other terms the concern voiced by our Legal Advisors a few days ago. To quote Holly's email : " For clients facing similar dilemmas, a common approach is to draft general principles into governing documents and provide a mechanism for interpreting them in specific situations. We recommend that the CCWG agree upon and articulate mission principles at a general level appropriate for inclusion in the Bylaws, understanding that refinement and interpretation will be needed thereafter. Based on the assumption that we would accept this advice, and that the IRP is the "mechanism for interpretation", we would have to focus on what general principles we can agree on, and only include this set of principles as part of our group's recommendations. Based on my reading of this thread, and the CCWG call discussions, it seems to me that there are some areas of agreement. First I believe the key principles of the 3rd draft remain acceptable : a. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internets unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. b. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in furtherance service of its Mission. Then I noticed what there seems to be agreement that related challenges of Icann decision would be focused on challenging the decision to enter into an agreement,, rather than the decision to enforce an agreement. And most importantly, regarding the discussion about "voluntary commitments", as Avri points out, we might have a way forward if we were to agree that *the scope of acceptable commitments in any agreement should be defined by policy* (with all the related process safeguards, including bottom up nature as well as advisory inputs), instead of implementation. Then it would be up to the policy makers to define whether eligibility conditions are appropriate or not and should be enforced, whether a specific form of stakeholder consultation or governance is acceptable, etc. I hope this is helpful to the discussion. Best, Mathieu PS: I have voluntarily left aside the "grandparenting" discussion which should be another thread. Our lawyers raised 5 very clear and good questions. -----Message d'origine----- De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Avri Doria Envoyé : mercredi 20 janvier 2016 06:02 À : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion Hi, Perhaps I am misunderstanding the conversation ongoing on this list, but this seems more like gTLD policy making than clarifying without changing the mission. It is almost as if we want to preclude the freedom of the GNSO to make bottom up multistakeholder decisions about gTLDs or community gTLDs that may be decided upon in the future. We are getting into a very murky issue that is still the subject of reconsideration, CEP and IRP processes. In fact more all the time. I think we are trying to do too much at the last minute with manipulation of the mission to meet people's political ideas about what ICANN should and should not do. My suggestions is that we go back to the wording for draft 3 and just make the minimal changes needed by the the IETF and the RIRs and leave discussions about ICANN's mission for WS2 or elsewhen - this is a long discussion we are embarking on. Personally I am very committed to the policies that the GNSO initiated on communities and while I think there is a lot of work to do on them in the next PDP, I do not think it is work that is appropriate at this point in time for this process. We are supposed to be working on accountability not the mission or the gTLD program. but if this is going to become a question about what is acceptable in terms of communities, their commitments and the contracts they make with ICANN on behalf of the communities they intend to serve, I will have a whole lot more to say. I am currently saving those arguments for the subsequent gTLD PDP, but if those issues need to be fought here and now, I guess I am willing. Is this part of the WS1 task? If so, why? I do not think this is part of the requirement for WS1 and transition. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community