[CCWG-ACCT] what ICANN can't regulate (was Re: Board comments on the Mission statement)

[Mueller, Milton L]

> -----Original Message-----
> And that's ultimately where the problem comes: people have realised that
> the root is a place of enormous control, and in order to get their pet project
> imposed on the Internet they're willing to try to use ICANN's control over the
> root and ignore whatever damage that might do.  

If you understand this then you understand the purpose of this prohibition. And you make it clear that this is something that MUST stay in the mission statement, and cannot be deleted without seriously bad consequences. I do not understand why you think this language is "dangerous." At best, you can say it is slightly redundant. But if you've studied information theory you k now that redundancy can overcome uncertainty. OTOH I can clearly see why its absence is dangerous. 

I can also tell you that if it is not in there you turn at least one and possibly two stakeholder groups against the entire transition.  So not having anything that does that is off the table entirely.

> Doesn't this mostly just duplicate the language already in the mission
> statement?  (If it gets us there, I'm not going to object, but it seems strange
> to write the same things twice.)

No. We wouldn't be having this debate if it were nothing but a repetition of the mission statement

> What about collaborating with anti-abuse people in taking down names that
> are the source of attacks.  Is that an imposition of an obligation on someone
> whose only connection to the DNS is the use you describe?  It's not covered
> by any of those restrictions, I think.  If it _is_ permitted, then we're back to
> the slippery slope we're trying to avoid.

It is understandable that you might confuse these things, but it is confusion. Taking down a name based on a legal order from some external legitimate authority is something that can and does happen without ICANN itself having broader regulatory authority to do it. The U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act, for example, makes it illegal for private firms to reveal certain of their customers' information; but if they are ordered to reveal it in response to a higher legal authority it is ok for them to reveal it. If ICANN responds to lawful authorities in name takedowns it is not "regulating" these services of its own accord, it is complying with law. Please don't muddy this issue. (Actually it is usually registries and registrars, not ICANN who take down names in response to lawful requests anyway)