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

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Sun Nov 22 18:07:26 UTC 2015


Paul:


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.
MM: You have hit the nail on the head here.


I think we can put it into words – and we must. We can make progress by recognizing what is on and off the table.

It should be clear by now that the “software process” definition does not do what needs to be done. Because it concentrates on describing a technical process that is so fundamental to the Internet his definition, oddly enough, has the potential to be massively over-inclusive. Second, again because it focuses on a technical process, it could fail to capture certain kinds of leverage that ICANN might illegitimately exert over Internet users or service providers through its contracts.
I still don’t see what is wrong with this as a starting point:
“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.“ One could add to this some specific references to content regulation, but overall David Post’s longer version of this was fine to me. I think we need to shift to that as our reference model for the language going forward.

I think Greg’s objections to this language, which are based on the notion that the language goes beyond “services” to include entities and people – have been shown repeatedly to be out of step with what people who are advocating this restriction want it to do. Here is a reminder of what we want the proscription to do:

From David Post:

> At the same time, I assume everyone also agrees that ICANN should NOT

> be permitted to impose restrictions/obligations/regulations on

> registrants that are not "like these" - that it can't use its power

> over the Amazon.com domain name to tell Amazon what kind of products

> and services it can or cannot offer, or how it has to deal with fraud

> complaints, or what privacy protections it needs to include in its

> operations; for things "like that." ICANN should NOT have the power to

> take down the domain (directly or indirectly, i.e. by requiring registrars to do the takedown for them).



I also think that James Gannon's list  was good.



> We don’t want ICANN to be able to insert ‘voluntary’ provisions into

> its contracts that allow it to stray outside its mission.

> We don’t want ICANN to be able to or be placed into a position of

> policing content. We don’t want ICANN to be the policeman of the

> internet We want ICANN to be able to enter into contracts an enforce

> them, when they have been entered into in good faith with regards to

> ICANNs mission and role within the DNS ecosystem



Bottom line: we are going to have to abandon the technical definition of service approach and work from these criteria.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151122/1e17391d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list