[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

Fri Nov 20 17:47:37 UTC 2015

Hello David,

Isn't your suggestion below somehow implying the same thing as
written/suggested in paragraph 1 of the document shared by the board? i.e
you don't want ICANN to impose anything that is not policy oriented. One of
the things that Paragraph 1 seem to already indicate is that coordination
of the DNS will be done based on policies....(and goes further to explain
nature of policies). It's like a guy saying he will fly on economy and
another person telling the guy not to fly on business/first-class.

Thanks.

David quote:
""ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly or indirectly, via its
contracts -- obligations on persons or entities whose only connection to
the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet communication, except
for implementation of policies for which uniform or coordinated resolution
is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability,
resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and which are developed
through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed
to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names
systems."

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 20 Nov 2015 17:10, "David Post" <david.g.post at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The problem with the current "services clause" - “ICANN shall not impose
> regulations on services (i.e., any software process that accepts
> connections for the Internet) that use the Internet's unique identifiers,
> or the content that such services carry or provide ..." - is that it
> doesn't mean what it says; because registrars/registries are "services that
> use the Internet's unique identifiers," and because we recognize that ICANN
> can and does "impose regulations" on them ...
>
> I had proposed a revised "sevices clause" :  ICANN should not be allowed
> to impose -- directly or indirectly, via its contracts -- obligations on
> persons or entities whose only connection to the DNS is that they use a
> domain name for Internet communication.
>
> A couple of people raised a problem: What about the obligation that ICANN
> already imposes, through the RAA, on domain holders to provide accurate
> WHOIS data?  Am I suggesting they can't do that?
>
> No, I'm not.  I suspect there's agreement that ICANN should be permitted
> to do this - but why?  Where does ICANN's authority to impose *these *obligations
> on name holders (but not others) come from?  It comes, n my opinion, from
> its ability to implement consensus policies reasonably necessary to insure
> the security/stability of the DNS, developed by consensus.  ICANN can
> impose these obligations on the holder of the davidpost.com domain
> because the WHOIS policy is one for which "uniform or coordinated
> resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness,
> interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and was
> developed through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process."
>
> As I've said before, I think this is already captured in the Mission
> Statement; but since others think we should have an additional clarifying
> prohibition, it could read:
>
> "ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly or indirectly, via its
> contracts -- obligations on persons or entities whose only connection to
> the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet communication, except
> for implementation of policies for which uniform or coordinated resolution
> is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability,
> resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and which are developed
> through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed
> to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names
> systems."
>
> David
>
> From: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com >
> Date: Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 4:39 PM
> To: Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Cc: Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
>
> Bruce
>
> One question:  The Board suggests that if language i adopted that says
> “ICANN shall not impose regulations on services (i.e., any software process
> that accepts connections for the Internet) that use the Internet's unique
> identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide ..." there
> might be some existing registry agreements that would be "out of compliance
> with ICANN's responsibilities."  I'd be curious to know what the Board is
> concerned with there - what parts of which registry agreements might be
> affected (and made non-compliant) by this language?
>
> With respect to that same "regulations on services" language, the Board
> says that it is "unclear," and asks for "some examples of what the CCWG
> believes that ICANN should and should not be able to do."
>
> I agree that the "services" language isn't clear at the moment.  Here's my
> attempt to capture the point that I think is being made:  ICANN should not
> be allowed to impose -- directly *or indirectly*, via its contracts --
> obligations on persons or entities whose only connection to the DNS is that
> they use a domain name for Internet communication.
>
> I think it's pretty straightforward.  I use a domain name (davidpost.com)
> for Internet communication.  The idea -- and I think pretty much everyone
> agrees with this? - is that ICANN can't impose any obligations on me that
> affect how I operate the site, what content I host or don't host, what
> goods or services I can or cannot offer, what billing system I use for
> those goods and services, what anti-virus software I install, ... It can't
> do that directly (by imposing some contract terms on me itself) or
> indirectly  (by getting 3d parties like the registries or registrars to
> impose the obligations on me).
>
> Registries and registrars, of course, are not entities "whose only
> connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet
> communication," so this clause shouldn't affect ICANN's ability to impose
> obligations on them (which remains limited by other portions of the Mission
> Statement).
>
> David
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> At 02:12 AM 11/19/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> The Board has been considering the CCWG Update on Progress Made In and
> After ICANN54 in Dublin published on 15 Nov 2015.
>
> The Board information call today considered the changes to the mission
> statement identified in that update.
>
> Attached is the Board's preliminary comments on the mission statement part
> of the Dublin update report.   As we review the remainder of that Update,
> we'll send through additional comments.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
>
> *******************************
>
>
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
>
> *******************************
> *******************************
> David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
> Foundation
> blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
> book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
> <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
>
> *******************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151120/337c974f/attachment-0001.html>