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

[David Post]

At 12:56 PM 11/20/2015, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>SNIP
> > DP:  "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."
>
>AS:  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.)
>
>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.

This is a good example - can ICANN shut down my domain as part of its 
"collaboration with anti-abuse people"?  I would think this would be 
prohibited - UNLESS it is acting pursuant to a policy " 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."

That is not an insuperable bar, and shouldn't be.  I could easily see 
how taking down names that are the source of attacks could be 
considered reasonably necessary to facilitate DNS security and 
stability.  So ICANN would need to develop, through the consensus 
process, a policy for how it's going to deal with that - which 
"anti-abuse" people are they collaborating with? What process are 
they going to use?  How will they accomplish the shut downs, 
technically? Is there any redress for wrongful shut-downs? Etc.

If they do that, then they can go ahead; if they don't, they can't - 
and shouldn't be permitted to.  I think that's the point of the 
clause - to stop the Board from doing things like this on its own.

David


*******************************
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
*******************************