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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sun Nov 22 18:59:26 UTC 2015


MM:
"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.“

SO: Combining "only connection" with "use" seem to mean that this is
referring to every other person aside registry, Registrar and registrants.
So in the essence it's referring to a typical internet user? If that is
right then I will have no issue with this. However I have a few comments:

- Isn't the further details proposed more of a policy issue than a mission
issue? Especially considering that part of the mission statement already
has this: "... Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the
root zone..." A typical root string does not lead to anywhere that has
content, does it?

- Is there any known instance where this has happened OR(with the mindset
of avoiding examples) is there any reason to believe ICANN could go that
deep in future because this is literally talking about denying access to
content/information.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

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.

_______________________________________________
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/20151122/fb259a76/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list