[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement)

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hi,

It may be good if you make a suggestion as well, it may also be good if you
indicate what part of board's comment you are not in support of. I think
it's good that we recognise there are limited(yet unknown) circumstances
where this happen and so I don't see how such limited circumstances(yet
unknown) can be embedded into the mission.

The clarification on role/responsibility of ICANN and other OCs is just
being clarified in the mission even though such clarification has been
operational. So noting spoils if the mission is maintained as proposed,
perhaps there will be more facts/scenarios in future that will help provide
appropriate wording which can then be included in the mission at a later
time.

I think the recent board's comment is one of the most neutral, persuasive
and engaging writeup I have read from them so far(whoever held that pen did
a good job). All their recommendations seem to make a lot of sense, so
maybe we should forget about the author and address the content on its
merits.

Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 21 Nov 2015 16:36, "Paul Rosenzweig" <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

> I agree with Malcolm.  I continue to be very troubled that we cannot put
> into words this very fundamental concept.  All agree there are some limited
> circumstances when ICANN can and should be allowed to impose restrictions
> on activity through contract.   All agree that there are many other
> circumstances in which that sort of action by ICANN would be illegitimate.
> The Board's proposal seems to leave the question open to later
> interpretation and for that reason I don't favor it -- but I also think it
> is imperative that some definitional language be hammered out .... without
> it the entire premise of IRP review and a limited ICANN mission founders.
>
> Paul
>
> --
> Sent from myMail app for Android
> Friday, 20 November 2015, 07:52PM -05:00 from Malcolm Hutty <
> malcolm at linx.net>:
>
>
>
> On 20 Nov 2015, at 21:39, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 03:54:09PM -0500, David Post wrote:
> >> This is a good example - can ICANN shut down my domain as part of its
> >> "collaboration with anti-abuse people"?
> >
> > Unless you're a TLD, ICANN can't shut down your domain anyway (at
> > least not without taking a whole bunch of other people out), so if
> > that's all we're talking about it's not a problem.
>
> On the contrary, ICANN can and does cause Registries to shut down some
> registrants' domains (by requiring them to redelegate it to another person
> without the initial registrants' consent).
>
> We are arguing about the scope of circumstances in which ICANN should be
> permitted to do this. Constraining the range of circumstances is the entire
> point of this clause.
>
> Malcolm.
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=Accountability%2dCross%2dCommunity@icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151121/fef107bb/attachment.html>