[CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Many words, but still wrong.

Any consensus is measured by the members, appointed by the chairing organizations.

Commenters have, per se, nothing to do with it. 

Unless of course they are ALAC appointed members.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On 11 Nov 2015, at 02:55, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Becky,
> 
> According to our charter, the following definitions are used:
> a) Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified
> by an absence of objection
> b) Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree
> 
> See https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Charter
> 
> 
> I am writing to supply evidence that two of your consensus level
> estimations are not consistent with these standards.
> 
> I am writing to disagree with your estimation of the level of consensus
> on certain points.
> 
>> o   To the extent that registry operators voluntarily assume obligations
>> with respect to registry operations as part of the application process,
>> ICANN should have the authority to enforce those commitments. 
>> 
>>  /NOTE:  There is not “full consensus” on this position/.
> 
> To the extent that this principle as stated would override the principle
> that ICANN should not seek to regulate the content of web sites or the
> general business practices of domain registrants (parties who have no
> privity of contract with ICANN), I believe there is widespread
> disagreement with your proposal in evidence in the public comment record.
> 
> Please find attached 11 comment extracts from the first public comment
> period. I have chosen these 11 comments as being examples that clearly
> and unequivocally expresses opposition to your proposed principle, to
> the extent stated above. These comments come from a broad range of
> stakeholders, including a Congressional Resolution.
> 
> I therefore content that the correct assessment is that there is *no
> consensus* in favour of this principle.
> 
>> *We do not appear to have consensus on the following concept*:  /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./
> 
> The same attached comments express clear support for this concept, and
> in many cases explicit endorsement of the wording.
> 
> The only criticism of it in the public comment was from the intellectual
> property stakeholders spread across BC/IPC.
> 
> Since there is both broadly based support and the only objections to
> this principle come from a narrow segment of the community, I contend
> that the proper assessment is that this principle *has achieved
> consensus, stopping short of full consensus*.
> 
>> Coordinating development, implementation, and enforcement of Consensus Policy, as defined by Specification 1 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and Specification 4 of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, is within ICANN’s Mission.
> 
> Becky, I'm afraid the only person who keeps coming back to Specification
> 1/Spec 4 as an adequate statement of the bounds of the Mission is you.
> And whenever you do so, it is challenged.
> 
> I don't think you have any basis whatsoever for claiming that this group
> as a whole has selected these documents as its view of the best or most
> appropriate way to define or describe the parameters of the Mission, let
> alone the best mechanism for recording those parameters.
> 
> I contend that the text in the first and second public comment rounds
> has a much better claim to represent a consensus view of how to draw the
> bounds of ICANN's Mission in this area. Unlike those demanding further
> changes, I offer evidence in support of this claim, in the form of the
> attached document.
> 
> It seems to me deeply regretable and contrary to our declared aims of
> transparency and inclusion to disregard both the general tenor and
> explicit recommendations of the public comment, and to allow vitally
> important last minute changes to be pushed through at the behest of a
> small group merely because that group has greater stamina for conducting
> a war of attrition.
> 
> Removing the widely popular restriction on ICANN's Mission would
> dishonour the public comment. For that reason, this group really ought
> not to support your proposal. Public comment replies should matter.
> 
> There being no new proposal that has reached consensus and that still
> honours the public comment response, the only proper course is to
> proceed with the existing text. Those few that disagree may be invited
> submit a minority statement, should they wish to do so.
> 
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> -- 
>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> 
>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
> 
>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> 
> 
> <Mission comments extracts.docx>
> <Mission comments extracts.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community