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

Fri Nov 13 16:44:39 UTC 2015

James:
Understand your concern. I think we can easily fix this.

Instead of saying "registries or registrars" we could simply say "under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) or the Registry Agreement (RA)."

Vertical integration between registries and registrars does not alter the fact that they are still contracted parties under either RAA or RA or both, and by specifying the RAA and RA we make it very clear which aspects of the business are "regulated" and which are not.

From: James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:22 AM
To: Silver, Bradley <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>; Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>; Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

Like many, I have completely lost track of this thread, particularly since many messages are arriving out-of-sequence.  Not sure if this this the best place to jump in, but here goes:  I do not support the inclusion of the terms "Registries" or "Registrars" in to ICANN's mission or bylaws.

We are entering a new era of vertical integration between & among a wide variety of service providers.  Some of these commercial activities are subject to ICANN governance, others are not.

We have a hard enough time defining these terms in our own Stakeholder Group Charter(s), so I don't recommend transplanting that mess here.

Thanks-

J.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of "Silver, Bradley" <Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com<mailto:Bradley.Silver at timewarner.com>>
Date: Friday, November 13, 2015 at 7:46
To: Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

Thanks Milton and Ed -

Doesn't calling our registries and registrars get us back into the problem area of whether activities such as the accreditation of Privacy & Proxy services is in breach of the no-regulation clause?  I had thought the goal of the draft Greg circulated was to describe the specific processes that ICANN would stay clear of imposing regulation on (the distinction being that "services" is not meant to describe entities, but rather a certain type of activity).

Also, the change the second bullet does not provide the clarity that is needed - it essentially makes it a narrower way saying what the first sentence says.  The point of the contractual language was to clarify that the first bullet would not impede ICANN's furtherance of its mission via contractual agreements.  I think flipping it around doesn't give the necessary guidance and clarity.

These are important distinctions, but I think a good step towards finding agreement on language that could satisfy broad interests.

Bradley

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 6:24 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

+1

The revised language is a bit clearer and based more on general principle than on specific technology. We're building a governing construct for the future ICANN regardless of where technology takes us. Milton's proposed language better allows us to carry these general principles forward regardless of any changes to base technology that ICANN might encounter or need to adapt to.

Ed

On Nov 13, 2015, at 2:45 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
Greg:
I think with some modifications to your proposed text we can find widespread agreement. Here is how I would modify your proposal:

ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to, achieve its Mission.  Without limiting the foregoing:
?        ICANN shall not impose regulations on:
o   Information services which use the Internet's unique identifiers but are not registries or registrars, or
o   The content that such services carry or provide
?        ICANN shall have the ability to enter into and enforce agreements with contracted parties, insofar as those agreements are consistent with its Mission.
Explanation:
"information services" is a simpler and more generic way to describe what we you are referring to and has a long regulatory history. As others noted before, it is dangerous to try to get too technologically specific. What we need to do here is carve out an exception to the regulation band for registries and registrars, which ICANN can and does regulate in accord with its mission.
The second point, pertaining to enforcing contracts, puts in clearer and more restrictive language. Rather than "in furtherance of' its mission I proposed "consistent with" its mission. One might claim that many ancillary activities might "further" ICANN's mission in some way; it is more precise to ask that ICANN's activities be "consistent" with its mission.
--MM

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:
I share Keith's confusion.  Just where are we?

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

=================================================================
Reminder: Any email that requests your login credentials or that asks you to click on a link could be a phishing attack.  If you have any questions regarding the authenticity of this email or its sender, please contact the IT Service Desk at 212.484.6000 or via email at ITServices at timewarner.com<mailto:ITServices at timewarner.com>

=================================================================

=================================================================
This message is the property of Time Warner Inc. and is intended only for the use of the
addressee(s) and may be legally privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, he or she is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, printing, forwarding,
or any method of copying of this information, and/or the taking of any action in reliance on
the information herein is strictly prohibited except by the intended recipient or those to whom
he or she intentionally distributes this message. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and any copies
from your computer or storage system. Thank you.
=================================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151113/49f3d6cd/attachment-0001.html>