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

[Mueller, Milton L]

They have been carved out, Alan. 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:02 AM
> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>; Mueller, Milton L
> <milton at gatech.edu>; 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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-communit
> > >> y
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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