[CCWG-ACCT] FW: Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Tue Dec 15 07:32:35 UTC 2015

Hello Kavouss -

I understood the Board comments to mean that the Board thinks the that the contractual issue should not be addressed in the Mission statement, but somewhere else to be determined by counsel.  So I am not certain.  But I agree this likely impacts the Mission Statement.

Becky

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: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:23 AM
To: Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Dear Becky

1.You said that

Quote

"B. Does the Board propose to replace (in some place other than the Mission Statement) the following two concepts:

ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide; and

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

Unquote

May request you to kindly advise which on « in some place other than the Mission Statement”

2. Even if in those some other places that you referred the changes made by the Board ,it would have direct impact on the “ Mission Statement” on which many hours were spent to agree to the proposed language.

May I respectfully ask your clarification please

Regards

Kavouss

2015-12-15 5:17 GMT+01:00 Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>>:
Hi Milton,

Perhaps the below, which I sent to the ccTLD community yesterday, will help you to understand what the Board's position is.

Chris

Hello All,

You will probably by now have seen that the Board has submitted some comments in respect to the Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal and an accompanying letter from Steve Crocker. In case you haven’t seen these yet, they are attached.

I thought it was important, as a ccNSO elected member of the Board, to write to you to explain the background to these comments and offer to discuss them with you at your convenience.

I am writing personally and not at the behest of the Board nor to provide you with input/comment from the Board. These are my personal opinions about where I think the Board is at, their motivation (and mine) for making the comments and what some of the comments might mean.

In my opinion, the Board is 100% supportive of the transition and filled with admiration for the work and effort of those involved in the CCWG. The Board believes that there are a number of areas of concern in the report that need to be dealt with. I stress that these are concerns of the Board as a whole. They are not concerns of staff that have simply been agreed to by the Board but rather concerns that the Board has expressed. Whilst the comment document has been drafted by staff (as has the draft proposal from the CCWG) this has been done at the direction of the Board and the full Board has unanimously endorsed the comments.

Some of these areas of concern can be characterised as ‘might it be better if’ areas but a small number are of higher concern. The Board has carefully considered these and provided detailed comment together with suggestions for dealing with the problem(s) that the Board perceives. There may be other solutions to the problems and the Board is not tied to its suggested solution.

In my opinion, the Board believes that if these higher concern recommendations (or parts thereof) are not dealt with then when the Board applies the global public interest test, in accordance with its resolution of 16 October 2014 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-10-16-en#2.d<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2014-2D10-2D16-2Den-232.d&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=n16Hqi4KARgo6ZXKrHJnKijRh7u4_NLRPH73DZvDPIU&s=jLNRSYxhMb2DnoFA6RFmb9J5OLlLA99qnMTa-Tr5ITI&e=>), there is a significant chance that the Board will find that some of those recommendations do not meet that test.

I fully endorse the Board comments and I believe that it is in all of our best interests as ccTLD managers to take them into account. I encourage you to carefully consider the CCWG recommendations and the comments of the Board and to provide your input to the ccNSO Council. I fully respect that some of you will not agree with all (or any!) of the comments of the Board but hope that, given my role and my commitment to the ccNSO and ccTLDs generally, you will understand that these comments are well intentioned and made in an effort to solve real issues with the current CCWG draft.

I stress again that the Board is, in my opinion, 100% behind the transition. However, the transition has to be 'done right' and ‘transition at all costs’ is not an acceptable stance, in my view. I know the time line is important but I would rather miss a deadline than not deal with the very real concerns of a group of 19 experienced individuals who have been nominated or elected to the Board to serve the ICANN community and to act in their best interests.

I will be delighted to answer any questions (on or off list) and to talk to you one-on-one or as a group. I stand ready to do whatever it takes to get a CCWG Final Report out to NTIA as soon as possible.

Cheers,

Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111<tel:+61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112<tel:+61%203%208341%204112>
E: ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.auda.org.au_&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=n16Hqi4KARgo6ZXKrHJnKijRh7u4_NLRPH73DZvDPIU&s=lAOvZbdGZr3dsnQKVhr2kdl7PuAeLBHqaSG9JgWboDM&e=>
auDA

On 15 Dec 2015, at 14:48, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:

Andrew:

What I read is that the board might have to ask that question later, not that it
has made a determination now.  What did I miss?

You missed the broader political context, as usual. While you are correct that the board statement does not explicitly say that the recommendations are not in the public interest, it is for all practical purposes issuing a threat. The threat is: change this to our liking or we will delay indefinitely the conclusion of this process by invoking our (unilaterally imposed) power to not accept the recommendation.

Specifically, here is what the board said:

" the Board will have to consider whether its concerns were addressed, and whether the final recommendations (including the specifics within those recommendations) are in the global public interest."

Given the timeline and the current situation, that is not only a threat, but a rather cowardly and disruptive one. If the board really does not believe that the recommendations "meet the global public interest", I want to know, and I think the entire CCWG and ICANN community has a right to know, how many board members, and which board members, share this opinion.

If the board is not willing to provide this information, then their comments are merely a suggestion, on t he order of any other public comment, and the CCWG can disregard those suggestions and go with its own opinion if it so chooses.

If the board as a whole, or at least 2/3 of it, really does believe that those recommendations are not acceptable to it (and frankly, I do not believe that the board is any better than determining what is in the global public interest than the CCWG, which is larger and more representative than the board) then they need to tell us now. And we have a right to know who those board members are.

We really don't have time to play games with hints and allegations.

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at 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=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=n16Hqi4KARgo6ZXKrHJnKijRh7u4_NLRPH73DZvDPIU&s=VjATWkfuZFf8kCC7I1rtH3WBuzaWF_bTNo1AbBPYOSQ&e=>

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at 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=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=n16Hqi4KARgo6ZXKrHJnKijRh7u4_NLRPH73DZvDPIU&s=VjATWkfuZFf8kCC7I1rtH3WBuzaWF_bTNo1AbBPYOSQ&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151215/c1ef97ba/attachment-0001.html>