[CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

Tue Nov 3 19:44:40 UTC 2015

Kavouss, 

I know that you have objected to this language before, but it has received
strong support in two public comment rounds (subject to the contract
enforcement question).  I tried to address your concerns about the
language regarding ICANN’s power to act.  The notion that ICANN’s actions
must be appropriate to achieve its Mission does not strike me as unusual
or over-limiting.  I hope that we can now agree to move forward.

Becky

J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer

On 11/3/15, 2:40 PM, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

>Dear Becky
>Thanks for yr kind efforts.
>Pls kindly clarify the objective of the qualifier" if reasonably
>appropriate" which part of the text the qualifier points to
>A) to achieve the mission
>B) to any other parts???
> I believe obligation to achieve mission does not require any qualifier
>as the language is watered down by the two consecutive qualifiers(
>reasonably and appropriate)
>We need to be careful on test.
>Regards
>Kavouss
>    "   
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 3 Nov 2015, at 18:17, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>> 
>> So, if we drop the competing lead ins (each of which elicits strong
>> objections from one perspective or another) the text will read:
>> 
>> "ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably
>> appropriate to achieve its Mission. Without in any way limiting the
>> foregoing
>> absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate services that use the
>> Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry
>>or
>> provide. ICANN
>> shall have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties,
>> subject to established means of community input on those agreements and
>> reasonable checks and balances on its ability to impose obligations
>> exceeding ICANN’s Mission on registries and registrars.”
>> 
>> Can we agree to this approach?
>> 
>> Becky
>> 
>> 
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 11/3/15, 12:10 PM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 03/11/2015 16:54, Burr, Becky wrote:
>>>> I understand the concern Malcolm, which is why I sent it out with both
>>>> alternatives.  What if we had neither ³in service of its mission² or
>>>> ³notwithstanding its mission²?
>>> 
>>> I think "in service of its Mission" is useful and important clarifying
>>> language.
>>> 
>>> I suppose I could reluctantly accept its removal, in the interests of
>>> consensus, if that enabled us to finally put this issue to bed and we
>>> could finally freeze this text. But I feel that every time I make a
>>> concession in this area, others come back with a yet more radical and
>>> unacceptable additional demand. I'm not interested in being
>>> salami-sliced any further by my own concessions.
>>> 
>>> It's time for the IPC to show that they are interested in reaching
>>> agreement. If they are not, we should revert to the original language
>>> that was overwhelmingly supported through the previous two public
>>> comment periods, and the IPC can be invited to add a formal dissenting
>>> comment.
>>> 
>>> Malcolm.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> J. Beckwith Burr
>>>> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/3/15, 11:48 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 03/11/2015 15:13, Burr, Becky wrote:
>>>>>> I¹ve attached a revised deck trying to lay out our conclusions from
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> night.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Becky,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I regret I wasn't aware of a meeting last night. Moreover, this
>>>>>message
>>>>> just arrived, and crossed with my reply to your message to Andrew
>>>>> immediately previously.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regarding the chapeau, if your proposed resolution works for the IAB
>>>>> (as
>>>>> I suspect it will), then I am content, and my previous message of a
>>>>>few
>>>>> moments ago can be disregarded.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regarding the "contracting" issue, I can accept adding the
>>>>>preliminary
>>>>> language "In service of its Mission". I cannot accept Greg's
>>>>> alternative
>>>>> suggestion "Notwithstanding the foregoing"; that would mean that the
>>>>> following statement completely supercedes and overrides the statement
>>>>> of
>>>>> there being a limited Mission.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you need any further explanation of why the purple
>>>>>"notwithstanding
>>>>> the foregoing" is a non-starter, I can provide voluminous references
>>>>>to
>>>>> responses to public comment, and a comparison with the ISPCP
>>>>>statement
>>>>> issued in Dublin. I hope this will not be necessary, and that we can
>>>>> all
>>>>> agree on "In service of the Mission".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Malcolm.
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>           Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>>>>>  Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>>>>> London Internet Exchange |
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx
>>>>>.n
>>>>> et
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>_&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYah
>>>>>OP
>>>>> 8W
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>DDkMr4k&m=JqsC5Zjvz5DIE0mKPzICaDfFgTw-Pj7kA_tmTjXLykk&s=F2P5dcS88CIyrg
>>>>>AF
>>>>> -9
>>>>> N3nMq_NXhs_W3qUUCmMroUkuU&e=
>>>>> 
>>>>>                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 Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>>>  Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>>> London Internet Exchange |
>>> 
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.n
>>>et
>>> 
>>>_&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP
>>>8W
>>> 
>>>DDkMr4k&m=Tpd2d9uemW87XIz_1HH4kpzAMFU1bANWL20yeB8rwvY&s=4Cs8W93kGiTXhBQK
>>>_H
>>> rE5iztStj__unZ2i_HULwv3P8&e=
>>> 
>>>                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 at icann.org
>> 
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=R7jvecg1FpKMMJVhGKo
>>afk9DaP1XymgB5bgvdBpC3nY&s=ZvtLNsKbi0wu_cjZGAo_WMSVWtBWNqOv8WO04iC1fPo&e=
>> 