[CCWG-ACCT] SIDE BY SIDE on Regulation/Contract language

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Tue Nov 17 18:48:34 UTC 2015


Milton, as a registry operator, Neustar’s concerns are motivated by a desire to clearly understand the contours of its commercial agreements.  Neustar has no motivation to let ICANN impose obligations that exceed the scope of its mission – and that’s why the limited scope set out in the Mission Statement is more important than anything else in this effort.  That is why the language I supported specifically made the contract enforcement provision "subject to established means of community input on those agreements and reasonable checks and balances on its ability to impose obligations exceeding ICANN’s Mission on registries and registrars.  But at some point, as a commercial actor, we need to understand exactly what we are signing up for.  And a contract that can be constantly attacked on open-ended grounds at some point becomes unenforceable altogether.



J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: <Mueller>, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>>
Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 1:33 PM
To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] SIDE BY SIDE on Regulation/Contract language

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:
Following up on this and the comparison I just circulated, and putting aside my rapporteur hat for a moment, I believe that Milton’s proposal to change “in furtherance of its Mission” to “insofar as those agreements are consistent with its Mission” moves us backwards.  We have articulated a clear and limited Mission.  We have stated that ICANN may act only in accordance with and as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.  Registrar Accreditation Agreements and Registry Agreements are commercial agreements between registrars and ICANN and registries and ICANN.  While I do support established means of community input on those agreements and reasonable checks and balances on ICANN's ability to impose obligations exceeding ICANN’s Mission on registries and registrars, I do not support open ended language that creates ongoing uncertainty about whether such contracts are enforceable.

MM: I think this may be an issue of nuance, on which I could bend, but I am concerned about the motivation of those proposing it, because it is a nuance that could put the camel’s nose under the tent. The language I proposed is _less_ open-ended than “in furtherance of its mission.” It just means the contract enforcement can’t be inconsistent with the mission. If, as Becky states, “We have stated that ICANN may act only in accordance with and as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission” then why would you object to language that requires ICANN to only do things that are consistent with that mission? On the other hand, if you don’t want any uncertainty about whether some contracts are enforceable, you must want to eliminate any mission-related restriction on them at all. If that’s the case, then I can’t support it and am confident that you will never get consensus for that and indeed, you will not even get GNSO approval of it.

--MM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151117/00d0c437/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list