[CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws

[Burr, Becky]

I understand your point Avri, but (as I said, unlike the HR issue) we have
had no real dialogue on what ³consumer trust² encompasses (outside of the
new gTLD review context), so it seems to me that moving the issue to WS2
is the only possible approach.


J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
<http://www.neustar.biz>




On 1/12/16, 5:42 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Not sure I buy into the Xmas tree analogy, especially when trying to
>delineate values.
>
>And while I have not had to make this argument in a while, I still
>maintain that as a vassal of the NTIA, ICANN would have been constrained
>to respect human rights and that the loss of NTIA forces us to take some
>responsibility for that as a corporation, especially in regard to an
>open Internet. 
>
>I still find it rather shocking and depressing that many, including our
>Board are fighting against human rights so hard at iCANN.  Option 2b
>would be a travesty and 2c is just a fig leaf, better than nothing, but
>barely.
>
>As for consumer trust, that may be a similar situation.  NTIA has shown
>by its participation in the AOC how much it cares about consumer trust,
>and I think that if the complaints against ICANN for consumer issues got
>any worse than they are, we would hear about from the NTIA and it  would
>be a consideration for any IANA renewal.  I would hope that they would
>reject any plan that did not promise an effort to maintain and improve
>ours.
>
>
>avri
>
>On 12-Jan-16 16:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:08:20PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
>>
>>> The language on human rights would be a departure from that
>>> standard, and the introduction of a generalized ³consumer trust² role
>>> would be yet another.  Apart from these two concepts, all of the
>>> assigned roles and responsibilities appear in ICANN¹s existing
>>> Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and the White Paper itself.
>> I think the above is an important argument, and it takes on more
>> importance when we reflect on previous observations from the NTIA that
>> this accountability work ought not to be an opportunity to remake
>> ICANN.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir
>us&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8
>WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9mx-BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=90feHGO6z1UakNUKm
>1puqej2hiSN0i1qKEBXIp7F1sY&e=
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9mx
>-BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=r-pEdrcIahOTlTQ9i-oail-6pa2AEY55jJwnzefh8U8&e=