[CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion

[Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams]

> But Eric is probably wrong, even if this academic anyway.

Of course, but lets find out what the specific error is.

> RFC 1591 is VERY clear on substantial misbehavior, probably only during the app
> lication phase, but most certainly also during tue application phase (as interp
> reted by the FoI Principles).

Jon submitted to Joyce the draft that was published as 1591 in the Winter of
1993-1994.

At the moment, in the ccwg-acct list, the subject under discussion appears to
me to be the enforcement of agreements contained in, or arising from, those
delegations made after 1998, which were not made because of existing, or new
allocations of iso3166-1 code points by the iso3166/MA.

I do not recall Staff (that would be Louis) reliance upon 1591 when selecting
6-10 of the 41 new gTLD applications submitted to the Corporation in 2000,
several of which I contributed to, and while tangential, when .us was transfered
from the IANA to another operator, the NTIA did not take note of conditions
existing during the IANA management period which were difficult to reconcile
with the plain reading of 1591, which were continued after transition to another
operator, and continue to the present.

Similarly, I do not recall Staff (that would be several people, not just Louis)
reliance upon 1591 when evaluating the 2004 sTLD applications, though of course
the application for .cat was made with the plain reading of 1591 in mind. There
was significant public comment on the next best 2004 application, which I'm
confident Becky recalls -- I don't recall the issue of 1591 among the major
critiques of the .xxx application.

I'm confident that there are others contributing to the list who were involved
in one or more applications in the 2010 round, and can offer their recollection
of the import of 1591 language, section 2 in particular, in framing their
application and any subsequent offers of conditions such as PIC statements. Of
the linguistic and cultural and/or municipal and/or regional applications I
contributed to or was informed of, as with the .cat application, these were
made with the plain reading of 1591 in mind.

I infer from your statement that my error lies in failing to discern the import
of 1591 in the 2000 and/or 2004 and/or 2010 and/or subsequent, if any, processes
which resulted in, or are likely to result in, delegations by the IANA function
operator.

> Never mind that i would be surprised that misrepresentations during the applica
> tion could not be sanctioned after delegation (in the agreement) ICANN could us
> e, in my view, RFC 1591 before execution of the agreement.

There is the history of .travel, and .pro, to name just two frequently mentioned
over the past decade and a half, or more generally, the weakness of the
compliance portion of the Corporation, whether directed at registrars, or at
registries. However, as I understand it, the subject under discussion appears
to me to be the enforcement of agreements contained in, or arising from, those
delegations, with the past accomodated by "grandfathering" language, so the
core issue is prospective enforcement, where the Applicant Guidebook is the
primary source of authority, not 1591.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon