Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws
Jorge, please see Annex 9 of the Draft Proposal, which provides this documentation 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: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 1:06 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws Good question. A comparison table (text of AoC and way it is being introduced into the Bylaws) would be helpful for those (like me) who do not know by heart the AoC… Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016 06:50 An: Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws Becky, can you please explain why you think that 3.c is there solely as an introduction to 9.3, whereas 3.a, 3.b and 3.d clearly have a wider scope? For those who do not have an AoC handy, I reproduce the section in question here. 3. This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: (a) ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent; (b) preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (d) facilitate international participation in DNS technical coordination. Alan At 13/01/2016 02:01 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: Come on Avri - I could say that we don¡¯t have sufficient cause - let alone authority - to amend the AoC, but I don¡¯t think that moves the ball forward. Rather, and respecting the integrity and good intentions of people on various sides of this argument, we have a strong disagreement about the meaning of the AoC on the consumer trust issue. One group reads Paragraph 3 as a ¡°chapeau¡± text introducing Paragraph 9.3, in which the consumer trust issue is exclusively limited to TLD expansion and calls for a review on the subject. I, along with many others, acting in good faith believe that this is unquestionably the proper reading of the AoC. I understand that another group reads Paragraph 3 as creating a separate, stand-alone and generalized obligation to promote consumer trust in the DNS marketplace that should be reflected in Article 1 of the Bylaws. I accept that this reading is taken in good faith, but I believe it is inconsistent with standard principles applicable to textual interpretation, let alone statutory construction, and an extraordinary expansion of ICANN¡¯s remit. I know what protecting and promoting ¡°consumer trust¡± means to a consumer protection regulator with sovereign authority. I don¡¯t think that¡¯s ICANN¡¯s job - although I do agree that the AoC gives ICANN specific obligations in this regard in connection with TLD expansion. That is being transposed into the Bylaws. But if we cannot reach consensus about charging ICANN with a general obligation with to promote consumer trust in the DNS marketplace - which apparently we cannot - then we need to find a way to proceed, unless everyone just wants to keep repeating their views and casting aspersions about the good faith of people with different views. So, my suggestion is WS2. 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<http://www.neustar.biz/>> On 1/13/16, 12:12 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
In this case, I do not believe we will have sufficient cause to request that the AOC be cancelled by mutual agreement. If all of the AOC concerns can't be brought into the bylaws, then they can't be said to be covered by the the By Laws.
Of course ICANN can still unilaterally abandon the AOC.
I also think we may need to be much more careful to make sure we have agreed upon definitions for all terms in the By Laws and not just those that belong to concepts some people are not comfortable with. I know there are some terms for which I have not been absolutely sure of the meaning and on which we have never had real dialogue. For example in an international context what do we really mean by 'promote', 'competition', and 'consumer choice'. I know I am not comfortable with the way some people define these terms. What are our criteria for these terms and for knowing when we have achieved them? How can a review decide that we have adequate global competition? How active do we need to be about promoting competition, especially in a global context with economies that have different capabilities. How much choice is sufficient consumer choice? I do not believe we have any better idea, or have had adequate dialogue and consensus on the meaning of these terms and concepts. I do believe we generally understand them as well as we understand consumer trust, but not better.
I am also sure I can find lack of dialogue and ambiguity on many other terms used in the By Laws. Is that the process we must now open up?
Lastly I think it is in the process of the multistakeholder AOC type reviews that we work on our evolving consensus definitions. I am certain that we now have a much deeper understanding of Accountability and Transparency after the two ATRT reviews than we did before those reviews.
avri
On 13-Jan-16 10:59, Burr, Becky wrote:
I understand your point Avri, but (as I said, unlike the HR issue) we have had no real dialogue on what ©øconsumer trust©÷ encompasses (outside of the new gTLD review context), so it seems to me that moving the issue to WS2 is the only possible approach.
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<http://www.neustar.biz/>>
On 1/12/16, 5:42 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Not sure I buy into the Xmas tree analogy, especially when trying to delineate values.
And while I have not had to make this argument in a while, I still maintain that as a vassal of the NTIA, ICANN would have been constrained to respect human rights and that the loss of NTIA forces us to take some responsibility for that as a corporation, especially in regard to an open Internet.
I still find it rather shocking and depressing that many, including our Board are fighting against human rights so hard at iCANN. Option 2b would be a travesty and 2c is just a fig leaf, better than nothing, but barely.
As for consumer trust, that may be a similar situation. NTIA has shown by its participation in the AOC how much it cares about consumer trust, and I think that if the complaints against ICANN for consumer issues got any worse than they are, we would hear about from the NTIA and it would be a consideration for any IANA renewal. I would hope that they would reject any plan that did not promise an effort to maintain and improve ours.
avri
On 12-Jan-16 16:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:08:20PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
The language on human rights would be a departure from that standard, and the introduction of a generalized ©øconsumer trust©÷ role would be yet another. Apart from these two concepts, all of the assigned roles and responsibilities appear in ICANN©ös existing Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and the White Paper itself. I think the above is an important argument, and it takes on more importance when we reflect on previous observations from the NTIA that this accountability work ought not to be an opportunity to remake ICANN.
Best regards,
A
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiv ir
us&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8
WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9mx-BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=90feHGO6z1UakNU Km 1puqej2hiSN0i1qKEBXIp7F1sY&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9 mx -BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=r-pEdrcIahOTlTQ9i-oail-6pa2AEY55jJwnzefh8U8&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PF_NdosT4JCr5C4OVB8 QdQB7quVw9enLpLj_xII31sI&s=eMSU5H8PvaY5Mf0Gi1SEuiQhpT01vxOvZGJgpclgqyE&e=
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir us&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8 WDDkMr4k&m=PF_NdosT4JCr5C4OVB8QdQB7quVw9enLpLj_xII31sI&s=6CL2_4RFJr5TCJVan JlKVPZ87BU4rKMhz9XZ7Hdz-XA&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PF_NdosT4JCr5C4OVB8QdQ B7quVw9enLpLj_xII31sI&s=eMSU5H8PvaY5Mf0Gi1SEuiQhpT01vxOvZGJgpclgqyE&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=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IKfaX6K5zCu-1uBcbLri_ZGpfZFDeiZM2Ck6A2fub5E&s=IRQF8s4zr9viwZ5gcQBOWjrWETEk7nkQempkiijZ6gs&e=>
Does it include also documentation which may show whether there is a different treatment to similar provisions as some seem to claim? Thanks Jorge Von: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016 08:04 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; avri@acm.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws Wichtigkeit: Hoch Jorge, please see Annex 9 of the Draft Proposal, which provides this documentation 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: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 1:06 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, "avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: AW: [CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws Good question. A comparison table (text of AoC and way it is being introduced into the Bylaws) would be helpful for those (like me) who do not know by heart the AoC... Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016 06:50 An: Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>>; avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws Becky, can you please explain why you think that 3.c is there solely as an introduction to 9.3, whereas 3.a, 3.b and 3.d clearly have a wider scope? For those who do not have an AoC handy, I reproduce the section in question here. 3. This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: (a) ensure that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent; (b) preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (d) facilitate international participation in DNS technical coordination. Alan At 13/01/2016 02:01 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: Come on Avri - I could say that we don¡¯t have sufficient cause - let alone authority - to amend the AoC, but I don¡¯t think that moves the ball forward. Rather, and respecting the integrity and good intentions of people on various sides of this argument, we have a strong disagreement about the meaning of the AoC on the consumer trust issue. One group reads Paragraph 3 as a ¡°chapeau¡± text introducing Paragraph 9.3, in which the consumer trust issue is exclusively limited to TLD expansion and calls for a review on the subject. I, along with many others, acting in good faith believe that this is unquestionably the proper reading of the AoC. I understand that another group reads Paragraph 3 as creating a separate, stand-alone and generalized obligation to promote consumer trust in the DNS marketplace that should be reflected in Article 1 of the Bylaws. I accept that this reading is taken in good faith, but I believe it is inconsistent with standard principles applicable to textual interpretation, let alone statutory construction, and an extraordinary expansion of ICANN¡¯s remit. I know what protecting and promoting ¡°consumer trust¡± means to a consumer protection regulator with sovereign authority. I don¡¯t think that¡¯s ICANN¡¯s job - although I do agree that the AoC gives ICANN specific obligations in this regard in connection with TLD expansion. That is being transposed into the Bylaws. But if we cannot reach consensus about charging ICANN with a general obligation with to promote consumer trust in the DNS marketplace - which apparently we cannot - then we need to find a way to proceed, unless everyone just wants to keep repeating their views and casting aspersions about the good faith of people with different views. So, my suggestion is WS2. 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<http://www.neustar.biz/>> On 1/13/16, 12:12 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
In this case, I do not believe we will have sufficient cause to request that the AOC be cancelled by mutual agreement. If all of the AOC concerns can't be brought into the bylaws, then they can't be said to be covered by the the By Laws.
Of course ICANN can still unilaterally abandon the AOC.
I also think we may need to be much more careful to make sure we have agreed upon definitions for all terms in the By Laws and not just those that belong to concepts some people are not comfortable with. I know there are some terms for which I have not been absolutely sure of the meaning and on which we have never had real dialogue. For example in an international context what do we really mean by 'promote', 'competition', and 'consumer choice'. I know I am not comfortable with the way some people define these terms. What are our criteria for these terms and for knowing when we have achieved them? How can a review decide that we have adequate global competition? How active do we need to be about promoting competition, especially in a global context with economies that have different capabilities. How much choice is sufficient consumer choice? I do not believe we have any better idea, or have had adequate dialogue and consensus on the meaning of these terms and concepts. I do believe we generally understand them as well as we understand consumer trust, but not better.
I am also sure I can find lack of dialogue and ambiguity on many other terms used in the By Laws. Is that the process we must now open up?
Lastly I think it is in the process of the multistakeholder AOC type reviews that we work on our evolving consensus definitions. I am certain that we now have a much deeper understanding of Accountability and Transparency after the two ATRT reviews than we did before those reviews.
avri
On 13-Jan-16 10:59, Burr, Becky wrote:
I understand your point Avri, but (as I said, unlike the HR issue) we have had no real dialogue on what ©øconsumer trust©÷ encompasses (outside of the new gTLD review context), so it seems to me that moving the issue to WS2 is the only possible approach.
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<http://www.neustar.biz/>>
On 1/12/16, 5:42 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
Not sure I buy into the Xmas tree analogy, especially when trying to delineate values.
And while I have not had to make this argument in a while, I still maintain that as a vassal of the NTIA, ICANN would have been constrained to respect human rights and that the loss of NTIA forces us to take some responsibility for that as a corporation, especially in regard to an open Internet.
I still find it rather shocking and depressing that many, including our Board are fighting against human rights so hard at iCANN. Option 2b would be a travesty and 2c is just a fig leaf, better than nothing, but barely.
As for consumer trust, that may be a similar situation. NTIA has shown by its participation in the AOC how much it cares about consumer trust, and I think that if the complaints against ICANN for consumer issues got any worse than they are, we would hear about from the NTIA and it would be a consideration for any IANA renewal. I would hope that they would reject any plan that did not promise an effort to maintain and improve ours.
avri
On 12-Jan-16 16:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:08:20PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
The language on human rights would be a departure from that standard, and the introduction of a generalized ©øconsumer trust©÷ role would be yet another. Apart from these two concepts, all of the assigned roles and responsibilities appear in ICANN©ös existing Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and the White Paper itself. I think the above is an important argument, and it takes on more importance when we reflect on previous observations from the NTIA that this accountability work ought not to be an opportunity to remake ICANN.
Best regards,
A
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiv ir
us&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8
WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9mx-BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=90feHGO6z1UakNU Km 1puqej2hiSN0i1qKEBXIp7F1sY&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_
listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lU
Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9 mx -BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=r-pEdrcIahOTlTQ9i-oail-6pa2AEY55jJwnzefh8U8&e=
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PF_NdosT4JCr5C4OVB8 QdQB7quVw9enLpLj_xII31sI&s=eMSU5H8PvaY5Mf0Gi1SEuiQhpT01vxOvZGJgpclgqyE&e=
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir us&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8 WDDkMr4k&m=PF_NdosT4JCr5C4OVB8QdQB7quVw9enLpLj_xII31sI&s=6CL2_4RFJr5TCJVan JlKVPZ87BU4rKMhz9XZ7Hdz-XA&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PF_NdosT4JCr5C4OVB8QdQ B7quVw9enLpLj_xII31sI&s=eMSU5H8PvaY5Mf0Gi1SEuiQhpT01vxOvZGJgpclgqyE&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=CwMFAw&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IKfaX6K5zCu-1uBcbLri_ZGpfZFDeiZM2Ck6A2fub5E&s=IRQF8s4zr9viwZ5gcQBOWjrWETEk7nkQempkiijZ6gs&e=>
participants (2)
-
Burr, Becky -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch