[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement

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>