<html>
<body>
<br>
The problem with the current "services clause" - “ICANN shall
not impose regulations on services (i.e., any software process that
accepts connections for the Internet) that use the Internet's unique
identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide ..."
- is that it doesn't mean what it says; because registrars/registries are
"services that use the Internet's unique identifiers," and
because we recognize that ICANN can and does "impose
regulations" on them ...<br><br>
I had proposed a revised "sevices clause" : 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. <br><br>
A couple of people raised a problem: What about the obligation that ICANN
already imposes, through the RAA, on domain holders to provide accurate
WHOIS data? Am I suggesting they can't do that? <br><br>
No, I'm not. I suspect there's agreement that ICANN should be
permitted to do this - but why? Where does ICANN's authority to
impose <i>these </i>obligations on name holders (but not others) come
from? It comes, n my opinion, from its ability to implement
consensus policies reasonably necessary to insure the security/stability
of the DNS, developed by consensus. ICANN can impose these
obligations on the holder of the davidpost.com domain because the WHOIS
policy is one for which "uniform or coordinated resolution is
reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability,
resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and was developed
through a bottomup, consensus-based multi-stakeholder
process." <br><br>
As I've said before, I think this is already captured in the Mission
Statement; but since others think we should have an additional clarifying
prohibition, it could read:<br><br>
"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, except for implementation of policies for which uniform or
coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the
openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the
DNS; and which are developed through a bottomup, consensus-based
multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure
operation of the Internet’s unique names systems."<br><br>
David<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">From: David Post
<<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>
><br>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 4:39 PM<br>
To: Bruce Tonkin
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>><br>
Cc: Accountability Community
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement<br><br>
Bruce<br><br>
One question: The Board suggests that if language i adopted that
says “ICANN shall not impose regulations on services (i.e., any software
process that accepts connections for the Internet) that use the
Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or
provide ..." there might be some existing registry agreements that
would be "out of compliance with ICANN's
responsibilities." I'd be curious to know what the Board is
concerned with there - what parts of which registry agreements might be
affected (and made non-compliant) by this language?<br><br>
With respect to that same "regulations on services" language,
the Board says that it is "unclear," and asks for "some
examples of what the CCWG believes that ICANN should and should not be
able to do."<br><br>
I agree that the "services" language isn't clear at the
moment. Here's my attempt to capture the point that I think is
being made: ICANN should not be allowed to impose -- directly <i>or
indirectly</i>, via its contracts -- obligations on persons or entities
whose only connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for
Internet communication. <br><br>
I think it's pretty straightforward. I use a domain name
(davidpost.com) for Internet communication. The idea -- and I think
pretty much everyone agrees with this? - is that ICANN can't impose any
obligations on me that affect how I operate the site, what content I host
or don't host, what goods or services I can or cannot offer, what billing
system I use for those goods and services, what anti-virus software I
install, ... It can't do that directly (by imposing some contract terms
on me itself) or indirectly (by getting 3d parties like the
registries or registrars to impose the obligations on me). <br><br>
Registries and registrars, of course, are not entities "whose only
connection to the DNS is that they use a domain name for Internet
communication," so this clause shouldn't affect ICANN's ability to
impose obligations on them (which remains limited by other portions of
the Mission Statement). <br><br>
David <br><br>
<br><br>
David<br><br>
<br><br>
At 02:12 AM 11/19/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hello All,<br><br>
The Board has been considering the CCWG Update on Progress Made In and
After ICANN54 in Dublin published on 15 Nov 2015.<br><br>
The Board information call today considered the changes to the mission
statement identified in that update.<br><br>
Attached is the Board's preliminary comments on the mission statement
part of the Dublin update report. As we review the remainder
of that Update, we'll send through additional comments.<br><br>
Regards,<br><br>
Bruce Tonkin<br><br>
ICANN Board Liaison to the CCWG<br><br>
<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" eudora="autourl">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post</a><br>
book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc.
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.davidpost.com </a> <br>
******************************* </blockquote><br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" eudora="autourl">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc.
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.davidpost.com </a> <br>
******************************* <br>
*******************************<br>
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America
Foundation<br>
blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post" eudora="autourl">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post<br>
</a>book (Jefferson's Moose)
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic" eudora="autourl">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic</a> publications etc.
<a href="http://www.davidpost.com /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.davidpost.com </a>
<br>
******************************* </body>
</html>