Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract
At 04:42 PM 11/11/2015, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Thank you David for clarifying your position, which is that you do NOT support deleting both statements and DO want to keep a clear affirmative restriction in place. You have proposed to modify the wording of the restriction in the following manner:
DP: "Without limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." Doesn't that do the job?
MM: Possibly. It depends on whether regulating content also means regulating the type or nature of the service provided. If content was interpreted broadly I could accept this formulation
Milton - I don't think we're that far apart in this, and I don't want to beat a dead horse - but just to clarify my own position. It's not quite correct to say I do NOT support deleting both statements - I do. If it were entirely up to me, I would delete both the "contract" language and the "regulation" language. But it's not entirely up to me, of course - and, obviously, many others feel strongly, with you and Paul, that some sort of "clear affirmative restriction" specifying what ICANN CANNOT do needs to be put in place. I'm saying I don't object to that, though it's not the direction I would go. If there is going to be some affirmative restriction language,it needs to be clear and unambiguous - otherwise, it is likely to do more harm than good, in my opinion; because it will have to be somehow reconciled with the Mission statement, it has the potential to muddy up interpretation of the Mission statement itself. My problem with the "regulation clause" language is primarily with the formulation that "ICANN shall not regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers," because it seems to me that, under a perfectly reasonable reading of that language, that is exactly what ICANN does do - it promulgates and enforces rules for registries and registrars, who provide "services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." I don't know how we would expect someone (the IRP) to understand what it is we're trying to get at, with that language, and it will just lead to all sorts of interpretive mischief. Which leaves the prohibition against "regulating the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." You write:
MM: Possibly. It depends on whether regulating content also means regulating the type or nature of the service provided. If content was interpreted broadly I could accept this formulation
The problem, though, is that we have to decide to accept or reject the formulation before we know how it's going to be interpreted. I'm not sure I know how you would want to make "content" as broad as you would like it to be. David ******************************* 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 *******************************
David
It's not quite correct to say I do NOT support deleting both statements - I do. If it were entirely up to me, I would delete both the "contract" language and the "regulation" language.
You perhaps more than anyone else in the world have emphasized how control of the root might allow someone to do just that. And yet, as we are engaged in a historic attempt to create a constitutional limitation on ICANN that would prevent that, and as the LEAs and IPR lawyers realized that and are trying to kill that attempt, you inexplicably come out on the wrong side at the most damaging possible time. PLEASE get on board with us and help us get this limitation in place. I think you are getting hung up on the fact that registry and registrar services are services. Of course they are and that is what ICANN regulates. The whole point of this exercise is to make sure that ICANN doesn't use its leverage over domain name registration services to extend its regulation into everything else on the internet. All the definitions are intended to make the distinction between the services ICANN can regulate and those it can't. If the definitions or wording don't work, make them work, don't tell us we don't need the limitation. I really can't say anything more on this, I am just hugely disappointed. Please retract your statement that we don't need a clear and explicit limitation on ICANN's mission.
-----Original Message----- From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 6:08 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: 'Accountability Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract
At 04:42 PM 11/11/2015, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Thank you David for clarifying your position, which is that you do NOT support deleting both statements and DO want to keep a clear affirmative restriction in place. You have proposed to modify the wording of the restriction in the following manner:
DP: "Without limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." Doesn't that do the job?
MM: Possibly. It depends on whether regulating content also means regulating the type or nature of the service provided. If content was interpreted broadly I could accept this formulation
Milton - I don't think we're that far apart in this, and I don't want to beat a dead horse - but just to clarify my own position.
But it's not entirely up to me, of course - and, obviously, many others feel strongly, with you and Paul, that some sort of "clear affirmative restriction" specifying what ICANN CANNOT do needs to be put in place. I'm saying I don't object to that, though it's not the direction I would go.
If there is going to be some affirmative restriction language,it needs to be clear and unambiguous - otherwise, it is likely to do more harm than good, in my opinion; because it will have to be somehow reconciled with the Mission statement, it has the potential to muddy up interpretation of the Mission statement itself.
My problem with the "regulation clause" language is primarily with the formulation that "ICANN shall not regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers," because it seems to me that, under a perfectly reasonable reading of that language, that is exactly what ICANN does do - it promulgates and enforces rules for registries and registrars, who provide "services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." I don't know how we would expect someone (the IRP) to understand what it is we're trying to get at, with that language, and it will just lead to all sorts of interpretive mischief.
Which leaves the prohibition against "regulating the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." You write:
MM: Possibly. It depends on whether regulating content also means regulating the type or nature of the service provided. If content was interpreted broadly I could accept this formulation
The problem, though, is that we have to decide to accept or reject the formulation before we know how it's going to be interpreted. I'm not sure I know how you would want to make "content" as broad as you would like it to be.
David
******************************* 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 *******************************
All, I'm growing increasingly concerned that we're not likely to reach consensus on these points (content regulation and voluntarily proposed contractual term enforcement) in the short time we have remaining. It appears that we have two increasingly divergent views and entrenched camps that are unlikely to find common ground in the short term. As such, I suggest we narrow the focus of our WS-1 work, remove both of the proposed statements, and push further discussion of both issues to WS-2. In doing so, we would retain key language that provides adequate protection against mission creep and is a significant improvement over the status quo. Here's the proposed text: ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN¹s Mission is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies: · For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; · That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi- stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet¹s unique names systems. These deferred issues could easily be added to the list of WS-2 work. I hope this helps us find a path forward. Best, Keith
On Nov 12, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
David
It's not quite correct to say I do NOT support deleting both statements - I do. If it were entirely up to me, I would delete both the "contract" language and the "regulation" language.
You perhaps more than anyone else in the world have emphasized how control of the root might allow someone to do just that. And yet, as we are engaged in a historic attempt to create a constitutional limitation on ICANN that would prevent that, and as the LEAs and IPR lawyers realized that and are trying to kill that attempt, you inexplicably come out on the wrong side at the most damaging possible time. PLEASE get on board with us and help us get this limitation in place.
I think you are getting hung up on the fact that registry and registrar services are services. Of course they are and that is what ICANN regulates. The whole point of this exercise is to make sure that ICANN doesn't use its leverage over domain name registration services to extend its regulation into everything else on the internet. All the definitions are intended to make the distinction between the services ICANN can regulate and those it can't. If the definitions or wording don't work, make them work, don't tell us we don't need the limitation.
I really can't say anything more on this, I am just hugely disappointed. Please retract your statement that we don't need a clear and explicit limitation on ICANN's mission.
-----Original Message----- From: David Post [mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 6:08 PM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: 'Accountability Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract
At 04:42 PM 11/11/2015, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Thank you David for clarifying your position, which is that you do NOT support deleting both statements and DO want to keep a clear affirmative restriction in place. You have proposed to modify the wording of the restriction in the following manner:
DP: "Without limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." Doesn't that do the job?
MM: Possibly. It depends on whether regulating content also means regulating the type or nature of the service provided. If content was interpreted broadly I could accept this formulation
Milton - I don't think we're that far apart in this, and I don't want to beat a dead horse - but just to clarify my own position.
But it's not entirely up to me, of course - and, obviously, many others feel strongly, with you and Paul, that some sort of "clear affirmative restriction" specifying what ICANN CANNOT do needs to be put in place. I'm saying I don't object to that, though it's not the direction I would go.
If there is going to be some affirmative restriction language,it needs to be clear and unambiguous - otherwise, it is likely to do more harm than good, in my opinion; because it will have to be somehow reconciled with the Mission statement, it has the potential to muddy up interpretation of the Mission statement itself.
My problem with the "regulation clause" language is primarily with the formulation that "ICANN shall not regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers," because it seems to me that, under a perfectly reasonable reading of that language, that is exactly what ICANN does do - it promulgates and enforces rules for registries and registrars, who provide "services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." I don't know how we would expect someone (the IRP) to understand what it is we're trying to get at, with that language, and it will just lead to all sorts of interpretive mischief.
Which leaves the prohibition against "regulating the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." You write:
MM: Possibly. It depends on whether regulating content also means regulating the type or nature of the service provided. If content was interpreted broadly I could accept this formulation
The problem, though, is that we have to decide to accept or reject the formulation before we know how it's going to be interpreted. I'm not sure I know how you would want to make "content" as broad as you would like it to be.
David
******************************* 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 *******************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03:08PM +0000, Drazek, Keith wrote:
Here's the proposed text:
ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN¹s Mission is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies:
· For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS;
· That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi- stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet¹s unique names systems.
Is that what you think the _whole_ of the mission text is? I thought we'd agreed on some other items too. If the CCWG wants to go for this, it's hard to see how ICANN could provide the registries for the top-most numbers or the protocol parameters. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
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.
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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
I concur with Malcom. -James On 12/11/2015, 9:41 a.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Malcolm Hutty" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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. =================================================================
On 12/11/2015 12:55, Silver, Bradley wrote:
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
Each of the previous two draft reports was a CCWG proposal, and each of them were intended as the basis of a final proposal, should the comment received have supported the proposal. That constitutes an internal consensus finding in its own right, prior to the public comments. The public comments then go on to show that the internal CCWG consensus was matched by a more broadly based public consensus. The reason we came back to re-draft the proposal was because first our initial Reference Model, and then the Sole Member Model both received substantial pushback in the public comment. There was no such substantial opposition to the Mission statement; on the contrary, it was widely welcomed. There were some concerns from the intellectual property community, which we have done our best to accomodate while continuing to uphold the substance of our proposal that was so popular. But there was nothing like the pushback we received on the model, so there's no justification to re-open the basic question of whether there should be an explicit prohibition on regulating content: that question must be considered settled. This is not the only issue on which the consensus achieved was an acceptance and willingness to move on (at the time) rather than universal delight with the substance. If we re-open this, we will also have to allow those others to be revisted too. Is that really what we want? I have numerous issues with which I am dissatisfied myself, and I think that for some of them I could make a convincing case that our decisions do not even match the standards we have set for ourself and claim within the Report. But I have chosen to remain silent on these issues that have previously been closed out, out of respect for the process. I think we can safely assume that others have shown similar restraint. At some point, you have to accept what you have got and move on. But this principle must be even-handedly. If this text is now removed or nullified, I seriously doubt the existing apparent consensus on other matters will hold either. -- 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
Far be it for me to wade into this logorrhea, but for needing to point that the Sole Member Model was rejected AFTER the fact by the very same members appointed by ALAC to the CCWG who had supported it DURING the process. el On 2015-11-12 15:34, Malcolm Hutty wrote: [...]
The reason we came back to re-draft the proposal was because first our initial Reference Model, and then the Sole Member Model both received substantial pushback in the public comment. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/
I always thought that it was a sign of intelligence to reconsider positions when the situation changes, and particularly when the key issues that drove the decision have substantially changed. I am sure that the good doctor follows this process in his medical practice. Alan At 12/11/2015 08:42 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Far be it for me to wade into this logorrhea, but for needing to point that the Sole Member Model was rejected AFTER the fact by the very same members appointed by ALAC to the CCWG who had supported it DURING the process.
el
On 2015-11-12 15:34, Malcolm Hutty wrote: [...]
The reason we came back to re-draft the proposal was because first our initial Reference Model, and then the Sole Member Model both received substantial pushback in the public comment. [...]
-- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I would be kind of interested in what key driving issues had changed after the Public Comment Period to have the ALAC appointed members have their mind changed for them. If any. el On 2015-11-12 17:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I always thought that it was a sign of intelligence to reconsider positions when the situation changes, and particularly when the key issues that drove the decision have substantially changed.
I am sure that the good doctor follows this process in his medical practice.
Alan
At 12/11/2015 08:42 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Far be it for me to wade into this logorrhea, but for needing to point that the Sole Member Model was rejected AFTER the fact by the very same members appointed by ALAC to the CCWG who had supported it DURING the process.
el [...]
It was stated in the ALAC motion and in my announcement of the decision. In the August proposal, the only model on the table was the Single Member. We did not like that option, but were willing to go along with the crowd and not, as a chartering organization, refuse to support the CCWG proposal. After the Friday meeting in Dublin, the CCWG was looking at both the Single Member and the Single Designator. Between those two we had a very strong preference and that was what we said. We explicitly did not categorically reject the membership model, and said we would reconsider it if it ever became the sole option again. Alan At 12/11/2015 10:38 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
I would be kind of interested in what key driving issues had changed after the Public Comment Period to have the ALAC appointed members have their mind changed for them.
If any.
el
On 2015-11-12 17:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I always thought that it was a sign of intelligence to reconsider positions when the situation changes, and particularly when the key issues that drove the decision have substantially changed.
I am sure that the good doctor follows this process in his medical practice.
Alan
At 12/11/2015 08:42 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Far be it for me to wade into this logorrhea, but for needing to point that the Sole Member Model was rejected AFTER the fact by the very same members appointed by ALAC to the CCWG who had supported it DURING the process.
el [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Good evening: I support the change in the ALAC position. 1. I supported the Single Member model as long as the commercial SO operators held less than 50% of voting power. When it became clear that the non-commercial ACs, notably the GAC, might not exercise their full weight within the Single Member, then it was dead as far as I was concerned. 2. I believe that the record will show that other participants have also changed their positions during the course of the CWG and CCWG debates. Fortunately so, otherwise even today's consensus would not have materialised. Others may yet do so. Regards CW On 12 Nov 2015, at 19:11, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
It was stated in the ALAC motion and in my announcement of the decision. In the August proposal, the only model on the table was the Single Member. We did not like that option, but were willing to go along with the crowd and not, as a chartering organization, refuse to support the CCWG proposal.
After the Friday meeting in Dublin, the CCWG was looking at both the Single Member and the Single Designator. Between those two we had a very strong preference and that was what we said. We explicitly did not categorically reject the membership model, and said we would reconsider it if it ever became the sole option again.
Alan
At 12/11/2015 10:38 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
I would be kind of interested in what key driving issues had changed after the Public Comment Period to have the ALAC appointed members have their mind changed for them.
If any.
el
On 2015-11-12 17:03, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I always thought that it was a sign of intelligence to reconsider positions when the situation changes, and particularly when the key issues that drove the decision have substantially changed.
I am sure that the good doctor follows this process in his medical practice.
Alan
At 12/11/2015 08:42 AM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
Far be it for me to wade into this logorrhea, but for needing to point that the Sole Member Model was rejected AFTER the fact by the very same members appointed by ALAC to the CCWG who had supported it DURING the process.
el [...]
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree with Malcolm and contend that the IPC's view can be included as a minority statement, the way anyone else has the option of filing a minority statement if there is not FULL consensus on a point. But we have had consensus (as defined in our charter) for many months on this point and it is not acceptable now to remove the language at the final moment because a small minority is exhausting us. This last minute proposal to delete language that has been shown by two public comment periods to be critical to many segments of the community calls the legitimacy of this entire process into question. Simply on a process level, it is unacceptable to remove this critical language from the text because a small minority won't agree. We need to follow our charter and removing this prohibition on content regulation - on which there is consensus - violates our charter and invites others to play the same game, re-open issues, and simply by exhausting everyone, change the text at the last minute to the opposite of what public comment called for. Robin On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I must again repeat that the ALAC was very concerned that the generic top-level names which ICANN does oversee are claimed by some to be content and these identifiers must be explicitly carved out of the prohibition on regulating content. Alan At 12/11/2015 07:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 12/11/2015 13:01, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I must again repeat that the ALAC was very concerned that the generic top-level names which ICANN does oversee are claimed by some to be content and these identifiers must be explicitly carved out of the prohibition on regulating content.
I thought we had agreed that this was just a drafting issue. Nobody wants the outcome you fear, so it can be left to the lawyers to ensure that that outcome is avoided. As I have said, I have no problem with a suitable drafting note to lawyers being attached. Let's not further confuse the issue on which there appears to be a more fundamental conflict with one which is just a question of checking that the final wording proposed by the lawyers does reflect our shared intent.
Alan
At 12/11/2015 07:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 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
Malcolm, you and I did agree on that, but as we move forward I want to make sure that we need to keep the drafting instructions to the lawyers in mind so it is not lost. Alan At 12/11/2015 08:13 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
On 12/11/2015 13:01, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I must again repeat that the ALAC was very concerned that the generic top-level names which ICANN does oversee are claimed by some to be content and these identifiers must be explicitly carved out of the prohibition on regulating content.
I thought we had agreed that this was just a drafting issue.
Nobody wants the outcome you fear, so it can be left to the lawyers to ensure that that outcome is avoided. As I have said, I have no problem with a suitable drafting note to lawyers being attached.
Let's not further confuse the issue on which there appears to be a more fundamental conflict with one which is just a question of checking that the final wording proposed by the lawyers does reflect our shared intent.
Alan
At 12/11/2015 07:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 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
They have been carved out, Alan. "ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in service of its Mission."
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:02 AM To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net>; Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract
I must again repeat that the ALAC was very concerned that the generic top- level names which ICANN does oversee are claimed by some to be content and these identifiers must be explicitly carved out of the prohibition on regulating content.
Alan
At 12/11/2015 07:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-communit y
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:41:22PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
"ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties in service of its Mission."
Just to be clear, I'm not (speaking personally) opposed to this text preceeded by, "ICANN shall have no power to act other than in accordance with, and as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission." I think it'd be cleaner without this, and I disagree pretty strongly with Malcolm's understanding of history, but I'm certainly not going to object to those two reasonably-clear sentences. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Dear Co-Chairs, Please note that there is NO consensus to remove the language from the 2nd draft which has already twice received consensus in both drafts and public comment periods. This is a significant Process Violation if you do so. It is imperative that the text from the 2nd draft be included in the document until a new text finds consensus within the group. Unless and until that happens it is a violation of our charter to remove consensus language and by doing so, the co-chairs risk the final document not being approved by the GNSO Council. The language never would have gotten into the report had it NOT had previous consensus, and re-opening the draft (based on an unrelated issue: switching to Designator) is not an acceptable way to remove it now. There is no consensus to remove that language and until a new consensus is achieved, it must remain. I am hopeful we can find the agreement, but until that happens, this will be a major Process Violation, which is likely to kill the acceptance of the overall report. I suggest you take this Process Violation seriously. Robin On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Robin and all: As has been shown by the extensive discussion on this thread, the concept of what "services" mean has been very much a point of debate. Consensus about what we want the drafters to say about this, was therefore clearly lacking. The meaning of "services" has implications for what the broader language means, and the proposals currently on the table have attempted to give substance to the consensus by calibrating what "services means", alongside the rest of that language. Even if one accepts that consensus was earlier reached on the words of the text, it was clearly not reached on the meaning of certain of those words, which is the kind of consensus I thought we were aiming for. Bradley -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:06 AM To: thomas@rickert.net Rickert; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Mathieu Weill (Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr) Cc: Accountability Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract Dear Co-Chairs, Please note that there is NO consensus to remove the language from the 2nd draft which has already twice received consensus in both drafts and public comment periods. This is a significant Process Violation if you do so. It is imperative that the text from the 2nd draft be included in the document until a new text finds consensus within the group. Unless and until that happens it is a violation of our charter to remove consensus language and by doing so, the co-chairs risk the final document not being approved by the GNSO Council. The language never would have gotten into the report had it NOT had previous consensus, and re-opening the draft (based on an unrelated issue: switching to Designator) is not an acceptable way to remove it now. There is no consensus to remove that language and until a new consensus is achieved, it must remain. I am hopeful we can find the agreement, but until that happens, this will be a major Process Violation, which is likely to kill the acceptance of the overall report. I suggest you take this Process Violation seriously. Robin On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
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
================================================================= 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. =================================================================
Robin, it is not called a significant Process Violation, it's called Pulling an ALAC. And the Co-Chairs don't give a dead rat's fuzzy behind about the Process, as we all well know. And I join you in the objection. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 13 Nov 2015, at 18:05, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Co-Chairs,
Please note that there is NO consensus to remove the language from the 2nd draft which has already twice received consensus in both drafts and public comment periods. This is a significant Process Violation if you do so.
It is imperative that the text from the 2nd draft be included in the document until a new text finds consensus within the group. Unless and until that happens it is a violation of our charter to remove consensus language and by doing so, the co-chairs risk the final document not being approved by the GNSO Council.
The language never would have gotten into the report had it NOT had previous consensus, and re-opening the draft (based on an unrelated issue: switching to Designator) is not an acceptable way to remove it now. There is no consensus to remove that language and until a new consensus is achieved, it must remain. I am hopeful we can find the agreement, but until that happens, this will be a major Process Violation, which is likely to kill the acceptance of the overall report. I suggest you take this Process Violation seriously.
Robin
On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
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] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com>; Accountability Community <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thanks Milton. As a contracted party, I'm all for finding the right formulation of wording, but I haven't seen much progress this week in that direction. Regards, Keith
On Nov 12, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
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.
What was wrong with this: "Without limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate the content carried or provided by services that use the Internet's unique identifiers." (from David)
-----Original Message----- From: Drazek, Keith [mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:27 AM To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract
Thanks Milton.
As a contracted party, I'm all for finding the right formulation of wording, but I haven't seen much progress this week in that direction.
Regards, Keith
On Nov 12, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu> wrote:
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.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:15:25PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
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.
Well, I didn't really understand Paul's argument either, but I didn't have a change to probe further. What I wonder is why it wouldn't be better to fix the part that is "open to too much interpretation". This is precisely the point that several of us wer making before about the way the chapeau worked: instead of adding limitations to a too-general statement, make the statement accurate and precise in the first place. Why isn't that the better path? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On 12/11/2015 12:28, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Why isn't that the better path?
The history of "enumerated powers" clauses shows that they are rarely effective in constraining mission creep, unless accompanied by explicit prohibitions. In the event that ICANN action is challenged in the IRP, it will be much easier, clearer and more certain, quicker, and cheaper to compare a specific allegation with a specific prohibition than to force the IRP to work with an enumerated powers clause alone. -- 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
Hi Milton, On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:37:54AM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
I really can't say anything more on this, I am just hugely disappointed. Please retract your statement that we don't need a clear and explicit limitation on ICANN's mission.
I still don't understand why what I thought Becky proposed doesn't achieve what you need. We have I think fairly broad agreement on the new, nicely enumerated and limited mission text. Add to that this sentence: 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? (To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion about what to do; I'm just very keen to find a way to consensus.) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andrew Sullivan -
CW Mail -
David Post -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
James Gannon -
Malcolm Hutty -
Mueller, Milton L -
Robin Gross -
Silver, Bradley