[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Nov 20 20:33:10 UTC 2015
David, not withstanding anything else, there are a host (pun intended) of policies that predate the multistakeholder bottom-up process (such as but not limited to Whois) that your statement would invalidate.
--
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On November 20, 2015 11:08:58 AM EST, 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
><<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>david.g.post at gmail.com>
>>Date: Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 4:39 PM
>>To: Bruce Tonkin
>><<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>>Cc: Accountability Community
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>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
>>><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>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
>>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
>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
>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/f9aa8fff/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list