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

[Mueller, Milton L]

Let me add this: I see once again a disturbing tendency to ignore and override the public comments. We went through two rounds of public comment on this proposal. In both comment periods, there was overwhelming support for the prohibition on content regulation. A consensus-based process that is responsive to the community would not be asking _whether_ we need this prohibition, it would only be asking how to word it.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Mueller, Milton L
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM
> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; Accountability Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding
> Mission and Contract
> 
> Keith
> I don't think we have irreconcilable views, and I certainly don't see any
> increase in divergence. What I see is some difficulty in formulating the
> wording right so that prohibiting ICANN from regulating other services doesn't
> get in the way of it regulating the services it is supposed to regulate.
> 
> Even if there is divergence, it is NOT an issue that can be avoided; it is
> fundamental to ICANN's mission limitation and accountability and I would
> never agree to a transition without it. We need to resolve this, and we have to
> do it in WS1.
> 
> By the way, it is impossible to avoid resolving this issue. If you do not include
> this prescription, you are siding with those who don't want it to be there - and
> thus overriding and ignoring the views of the people who want it there.
> 
> Andrew:
> 
> >    ICANN shall have no power to act other than in accordance with,
> >    and as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.
> >
> > With that prohibition on ICANN going out and finding new things to do,
> > you have the explicit limitation you want.  No?
> 
> No. Paul R has addressed this. What we have now is open to too much
> interpretation and is not a clear enough limitation. We need to have a clear
> and explicit limitation, not a general statement that ICANN will conform to its
> mission. We need to make it clear that the mission does NOT include content
> regulation.
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
> Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community