[CCWG-ACCT] proposed language for Mission statement on contract enforcement

[Nigel Roberts]

Eric

There's a strong argument that "addressing the wildcard problem" was 
corporate overreach.

I know some will disagree, but it's nothing to do with the technical 
co-ordination of internet identifies, and everything to do with economic 
regulation.



On 30/10/15 16:31, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> Becky,
>
> "shall not regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers"
> -- had this language been in place a decade ago how could the
> corporation have addressed the wildcard problem? Who would be the
> regulator(s) of monitized synthetic returns? These are things that
> actually broke the net, and an appeal to Vixie's patch seems ... well
> ... to court risk of repetition.
>
> Where do we go in the future when VGRS initiates another disruptive
> service unforeseen in contract? When the Egyptian government next
> withdraws all prefixes can we keep the last authoritative nameserver for
> Egypt running after its data expires?
>
> Also, assuming for the moment that ICANN currently exercises delegated
> rule making authority, if ICANN explicitly abandons this authority, does
> that authority revert to the delegating agency?
>
> If I may, to regulate, or not regulate, stub-, recursive- and
> authoritative-resolvers and their resolutions via port 53 of delegated
> name spaces to allocated address spaces, is more on-point, and vastly
> narrower, than "services that use ..."
>
> Eric
>
> On 10/30/15 6:19 AM, Burr, Becky wrote:
>>
>> In Dublin we discussed, both in our working meetings and over two
>> brown bag lunches, an approach to addressing concerns about the
>> Mission Statement prohibition on regulation of services that use the
>> Internet’s unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry
>> or provide.  The following language (in blue) is proposed to address
>> this concern:
>>
>> ICANN shall have no power to act other than in accordance with, and as
>> reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. Without in any way
>> limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate
>> services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content
>> that such services carry or provide.  In service of its Mission, ICANN
>> shall have the ability to enforce agreements with contracted parties,
>> subject to established means of community input on those agreements
>> and reasonable checks and balances on its ability to impose
>> obligations exceeding ICANN’s Mission on registries and registrars.
>>
>> What we discussed (over the lunches) as a reasonable check and balance
>>  (in addition to existing mechanisms such as public comment, etc.) is
>> a new mechanism whereby registries and registrars are permitted to
>> sign RAs and RAAs subject to a public reservation that they intend to
>> challenge one or more specified provisions of such agreements on the
>> grounds that the provision(s) would exceed the scope of ICANN’s
>> Mission.   This mechanism will need to be developed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> J. Beckwith Burr
>> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at 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
>