Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion)
At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments. In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest." The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO. An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws. Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG. I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process". However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies." But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value! Alan
Alan and all, I agree with you and prefer your first proposal, but can live with the second one assuming that « and specifically » be replaced by « mainly ». ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 3 févr. 2016 à 05:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments.
In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads:
"Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest."
The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is:
"Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process."
In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO.
An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws.
Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG.
I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process".
However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is:
"Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies."
But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value!
Alan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I’m sorry, I just do not see how this could possibly be read to preclude the African, Latin American, or Caribbean strategy. I think that there are potentially significant unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link that says the global public interest is identified through the bottom up, multistakeholder policy development process. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:45 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Alan and all, I agree with you and prefer your first proposal, but can live with the second one assuming that « and specifically » be replaced by « mainly ». ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 3 févr. 2016 à 05:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit : At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments. In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest." The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO. An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws. Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG. I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process". However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies." But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value! Alan _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwQFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=SuJ3nLhK2VF3QCvO-vpM69BZ7nYz9DnU2a07UIB7ecA&s=427V5ijMF4DHDCebM1hW5rQRWxpeao1CNXncuzTeW-I&e=>
Becky + 1 Kavouss 2016-02-03 17:28 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>:
I’m sorry, I just do not see how this could possibly be read to preclude the African, Latin American, or Caribbean strategy. I think that there are potentially significant unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link that says the global public interest is identified through the bottom up, multistakeholder policy development process.
*J. Beckwith Burr* *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 *Office:* +1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:45 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion)
Alan and all,
I agree with you and prefer your first proposal, but can live with the second one assuming that « and specifically » be replaced by « mainly ».
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 3 févr. 2016 à 05:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments.
In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads:
"Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest."
The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is:
"Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process."
In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO.
An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws.
Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG.
I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process".
However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is:
"Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies."
But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value!
Alan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I agree. Also, as I pointed out in Adobe Chat on Tuesday, the phrase “policy development process” is not capitalized and I think that’s appropriate in the context of the full sentence. Regards, Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 11:30 AM To: Burr, Becky Cc: CCWG ACCT Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Becky + 1 Kavouss 2016-02-03 17:28 GMT+01:00 Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>: I’m sorry, I just do not see how this could possibly be read to preclude the African, Latin American, or Caribbean strategy. I think that there are potentially significant unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link that says the global public interest is identified through the bottom up, multistakeholder policy development process. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:45 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Alan and all, I agree with you and prefer your first proposal, but can live with the second one assuming that « and specifically » be replaced by « mainly ». ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114<tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114> +216 52 385 114<tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 3 févr. 2016 à 05:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit : At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments. In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest." The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO. An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws. Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG. I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process". However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies." But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value! Alan _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwQFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=SuJ3nLhK2VF3QCvO-vpM69BZ7nYz9DnU2a07UIB7ecA&s=427V5ijMF4DHDCebM1hW5rQRWxpeao1CNXncuzTeW-I&e=> _______________________________________________ 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
Alan: Becky is correct. The "bottom up, MSH PDP" language is a statement about how "the global public interest" is identified, and has absolutely nothing to do with the African, LAC strategies. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:28 AM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: CCWG ACCT <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) I'm sorry, I just do not see how this could possibly be read to preclude the African, Latin American, or Caribbean strategy. I think that there are potentially significant unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link that says the global public interest is identified through the bottom up, multistakeholder policy development process. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:45 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Alan and all, I agree with you and prefer your first proposal, but can live with the second one assuming that « and specifically » be replaced by « mainly ». ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 3 févr. 2016 à 05:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit : At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments. In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest." The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO. An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws. Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG. I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process". However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies." But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value! Alan _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwQFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=SuJ3nLhK2VF3QCvO-vpM69BZ7nYz9DnU2a07UIB7ecA&s=427V5ijMF4DHDCebM1hW5rQRWxpeao1CNXncuzTeW-I&e=>
Dear Becky, the way the sentence is constructed is somehow ambiguous: ""Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." So it is the "public interest" that should be identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process, not the introduction and promotion of competition. Are you asserting this should be done through a PDP? Also, please be so kind to clarify the "potentially unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link" Kindest regards, Olivier On 03/02/2016 17:28, Burr, Becky wrote:
I’m sorry, I just do not see how this could possibly be read to preclude the African, Latin American, or Caribbean strategy. I think that there are potentially significant unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link that says the global public interest is identified through the bottom up, multistakeholder policy development process.
*J. Beckwith Burr**** **Neustar, Inc.***/**Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 *Office:***+1.202.533.2932 *Mobile:***+1.202.352.6367 */**neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:45 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion)
Alan and all,
I agree with you and prefer your first proposal, but can live with the second one assuming that « and specifically » be replaced by « mainly ».
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 3 févr. 2016 à 05:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit :
At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments.
In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads:
"Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest."
The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is:
"Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process."
In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO.
An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws.
Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG.
I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process".
However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is:
"Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies."
But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value!
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Since Frankfurt we have attempted to be clear that ICANN should identify the global public interest through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process. See also Core Value 2, which requires ICANN to seek and support broad participation “to ensure that the bottom-up multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest…” So yes, we have been consistent on this point. I am trying hard to understand why this would preclude ICANN from pursuing the Africa Strategy file://localhost/Users/justynaburr/Downloads/presentation-africa-strategy-plan-10feb15-en.pdf J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 12:46 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Dear Becky, the way the sentence is constructed is somehow ambiguous: ""Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." So it is the "public interest" that should be identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process, not the introduction and promotion of competition. Are you asserting this should be done through a PDP? Also, please be so kind to clarify the "potentially unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link" Kindest regards, Olivier On 03/02/2016 17:28, Burr, Becky wrote: I’m sorry, I just do not see how this could possibly be read to preclude the African, Latin American, or Caribbean strategy. I think that there are potentially significant unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link that says the global public interest is identified through the bottom up, multistakeholder policy development process. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:45 AM To: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Alan and all, I agree with you and prefer your first proposal, but can live with the second one assuming that « and specifically » be replaced by « mainly ». ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 3 févr. 2016 à 05:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit : At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments. In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest." The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO. An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws. Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG. I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process". However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies." But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value! Alan _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwQFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=SuJ3nLhK2VF3QCvO-vpM69BZ7nYz9DnU2a07UIB7ecA&s=427V5ijMF4DHDCebM1hW5rQRWxpeao1CNXncuzTeW-I&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nIeZAI9P0h01_9C9niTrHGBRu-_PDgRGn4Q2iurAd6k&s=dX1V_witwMJVMZYb9rD8NlvJtTnh8BgsRV9vBhRw1N8&e=> -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nIeZAI9P0h01_9C9niTrHGBRu-_PDgRGn4Q2iurAd6k&s=Erd4e0La8IgLyCQyEEPYMVFtjDlu-DRXDJ68bqkreSY&e=>
Good point regarding Core Value 2. Regarding the example of the Africa strategy, it appears that rather than requiring a PDP, this would be part of the outreach and awareness effort needed in order to build a solid and diverse multistakeholder community that can fully participate in ascertaining the Global Public Interest. A key item in the Public Responsibility Framework had to do with " "building out the base of internationally diverse, knowledgeable and engaged ICANN stakeholders, especially within the developing world" ; The quote from this Public Responsibility Framework Strategy Panel report contained the following definition of Global Public Interest on p. 4: "Ensuring that the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance ecosystem." See May 2014 report here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/prf-report-15may14-en.pdf Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D15E8D.52C83FF0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 1:09 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Tijani BEN JEMAA; Alan Greenberg Cc: CCWG ACCT Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Since Frankfurt we have attempted to be clear that ICANN should identify the global public interest through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process. See also Core Value 2, which requires ICANN to seek and support broad participation "to ensure that the bottom-up multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest..." So yes, we have been consistent on this point. I am trying hard to understand why this would preclude ICANN from pursuing the Africa Strategy file://localhost/Users/justynaburr/Downloads/presentation-africa-strategy-plan-10feb15-en.pdf J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 12:46 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Dear Becky, the way the sentence is constructed is somehow ambiguous: ""Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." So it is the "public interest" that should be identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process, not the introduction and promotion of competition. Are you asserting this should be done through a PDP? Also, please be so kind to clarify the "potentially unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link" Kindest regards, Olivier On 03/02/2016 17:28, Burr, Becky wrote: I'm sorry, I just do not see how this could possibly be read to preclude the African, Latin American, or Caribbean strategy. I think that there are potentially significant unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link that says the global public interest is identified through the bottom up, multistakeholder policy development process. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:45 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Alan and all, I agree with you and prefer your first proposal, but can live with the second one assuming that « and specifically » be replaced by « mainly ». ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 3 févr. 2016 à 05:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit : At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments. In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest." The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO. An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws. Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG. I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process". However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies." But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value! Alan _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwQFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=SuJ3nLhK2VF3QCvO-vpM69BZ7nYz9DnU2a07UIB7ecA&s=427V5ijMF4DHDCebM1hW5rQRWxpeao1CNXncuzTeW-I&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nIeZAI9P0h01_9C9niTrHGBRu-_PDgRGn4Q2iurAd6k&s=dX1V_witwMJVMZYb9rD8NlvJtTnh8BgsRV9vBhRw1N8&e=> -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nIeZAI9P0h01_9C9niTrHGBRu-_PDgRGn4Q2iurAd6k&s=Erd4e0La8IgLyCQyEEPYMVFtjDlu-DRXDJ68bqkreSY&e=> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
To me that outreach and awareness is fully consistent with ICANN’s Mission of “ensuring the stable and secure operations of the Internet’s unique identifier systems” and with “coordinating the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System.” It also furthers ICANN’s commitment to preserve and enhance global interoperability and openness (Commitment 2), to employ open, transparent, and bottom up multistakeholder policy development processes to ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process (Commitment 5) and its Core Value of “seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels” (Core Value 3). J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: <Aikman-Scalese>, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 4:15 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Good point regarding Core Value 2. Regarding the example of the Africa strategy, it appears that rather than requiring a PDP, this would be part of the outreach and awareness effort needed in order to build a solid and diverse multistakeholder community that can fully participate in ascertaining the Global Public Interest. A key item in the Public Responsibility Framework had to do with “ “building out the base of internationally diverse, knowledgeable and engaged ICANN stakeholders, especially within the developing world” ; The quote from this Public Responsibility Framework Strategy Panel report contained the following definition of Global Public Interest on p. 4: “Ensuring that the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance ecosystem.” See May 2014 report here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/prf-report-15may14-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_prf-2Dreport-2D15may14-2Den.pdf&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=UaFhpWRlv7X-NCykig13pWPROlAnmZlNrbD2bwIb-ok&s=JenVnbhA0lJ7Zp3MDHLdX6gWujOAJ5zeDaX8MNZhoZo&e=> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D15E8D.52C83FF0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lrrc.com_&d=CwMF-g&c=MOp...> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 1:09 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Tijani BEN JEMAA; Alan Greenberg Cc: CCWG ACCT Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Since Frankfurt we have attempted to be clear that ICANN should identify the global public interest through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process. See also Core Value 2, which requires ICANN to seek and support broad participation “to ensure that the bottom-up multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest…” So yes, we have been consistent on this point. I am trying hard to understand why this would preclude ICANN from pursuing the Africa Strategy file://localhost/Users/justynaburr/Downloads/presentation-africa-strategy-plan-10feb15-en.pdf J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 12:46 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Dear Becky, the way the sentence is constructed is somehow ambiguous: ""Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." So it is the "public interest" that should be identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process, not the introduction and promotion of competition. Are you asserting this should be done through a PDP? Also, please be so kind to clarify the "potentially unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link" Kindest regards, Olivier On 03/02/2016 17:28, Burr, Becky wrote: I’m sorry, I just do not see how this could possibly be read to preclude the African, Latin American, or Caribbean strategy. I think that there are potentially significant unintended consequences flowing from breaking the link that says the global public interest is identified through the bottom up, multistakeholder policy development process. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office:+1.202.533.2932 Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> From: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at 7:45 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Concern over Proposed Core Value 5 (as per CCWG ACCT 82 discussion) Alan and all, I agree with you and prefer your first proposal, but can live with the second one assuming that « and specifically » be replaced by « mainly ». ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 3 févr. 2016 à 05:09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit : At the meeting last night, I raised an issue related to the proposed Core Value 6. It was also raised in an e-mail several days earlier, but that did not attract any comments. In the current Bylaws, Core Value 6 reads: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest." The proposed version (now Core Value 5) is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process." In the context of the Bylaws, the expression "policy development process" is used only in the context of the ccNSO and GNSO PDPs. The problem is that not everything that ICANN does is "policy", and certainly not developed by the GNSO and ccNSO. An example is the Strategy for Africa that was initiated in 2012 and by all reports is having very positive results. One of ICANN's strategic goals is to improve participation from the African region. An essential part of this is to build up the DNS industry there. The African strategy was certainly developed through a bottom-up MS process, but just as certainly not through a "policy development process" as described in the ICANN Bylaws. Under the proposed wording, part of the African Strategy could be rules out of order, and the same goes for the Latin-America & Caribbean Strategy. I have to assume that this is not the intent of the CCWG. I would be happy to simply replace "the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process" by "a bottom-up, multistakeholder process". However, for those who worry that this might be an escape hatch related to the GNSO and ccNSO PDPs, another alternative is: "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest as identified through bottom-up, multistakeholder processes and specifically the policy development processes when applicable to GNSO and ccNSO policies." But I really feel that this is to much detail for a Bylaw Core Value! Alan _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwQFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=SuJ3nLhK2VF3QCvO-vpM69BZ7nYz9DnU2a07UIB7ecA&s=427V5ijMF4DHDCebM1hW5rQRWxpeao1CNXncuzTeW-I&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nIeZAI9P0h01_9C9niTrHGBRu-_PDgRGn4Q2iurAd6k&s=dX1V_witwMJVMZYb9rD8NlvJtTnh8BgsRV9vBhRw1N8&e=> -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gih.com_ocl.html&d=CwMF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=nIeZAI9P0h01_9C9niTrHGBRu-_PDgRGn4Q2iurAd6k&s=Erd4e0La8IgLyCQyEEPYMVFtjDlu-DRXDJ68bqkreSY&e=> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
To me that [...] is fully consistent with ICANN's Mission ...
Agree.
It also [...] to preserve and enhance global interoperability and openness (Commitment 2),
Also agree.
[...] employ open, transparent [...] to ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process (Commitment 5)
Also agree.
[...] seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity [...] (Core Value 3).
Also agree. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
participants (9)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alan Greenberg -
Burr, Becky -
Drazek, Keith -
Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mueller, Milton L -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Tijani BEN JEMAA