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

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 12/11/2015 13:01, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> I must again repeat that the ALAC was very concerned that the generic
> top-level names which ICANN does oversee are claimed by some to be
> content and these identifiers must be explicitly carved out of the
> prohibition on regulating content.

I thought we had agreed that this was just a drafting issue.

Nobody wants the outcome you fear, so it can be left to the lawyers to
ensure that that outcome is avoided. As I have said, I have no problem
with a suitable drafting note to lawyers being attached.

Let's not further confuse the issue on which there appears to be a more
fundamental conflict with one which is just a question of checking that
the final wording proposed by the lawyers does reflect our shared intent.



> Alan
> 
> At 12/11/2015 07:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>> Dear Co-Chairs
>>
>> I think the best way of resolving this would be to note that we have
>> ALREADY reached consensus on this TWICE (in order to publish two Draft
>> Reports that recommended this provision), and only to assess the public
>> comments.
>>
>> Remember, either of the previous Draft Reports could have been the final
>> outcome; we've only come back to a second and a third because of a
>> separate issue (changing the Reference Model, twice).
>>
>> When assessing the public comments, we can see overwhelming support for
>> the inclusion of this text.
>>
>> Moreover, we have found a way to at least partially address the only
>> concerns raised in the public comment, by adding
>>
>> "ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce
>> agreements with contracted parties in service of its Mission."
>>
>> This gives what those few who raised concerns at least part of what they
>> want, and we have not found any consensus to go further.
>>
>> I think the Co-Chairs could quite legitimately say that it is too late
>> to open new issues now, and that we should proceed on the basis of the
>> previously achieved consensus.
>>
>> Malcolm.
>>
>> On 12/11/2015 12:20, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> > 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
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> >
>>
>> -- 
>>             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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 

-- 
            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