<div dir="ltr"><div>Steve, I tend to agree with Malcolm in saying that whenever, we do not have a xclear definition nor a descrition for an item what is the usefulness of its inclusion in BYLAWS ?<br>The difficulties that I have is , we may include many thing in the Mission and/or Bylaws, but when ICANN wants / required to implement that it would face difficulties to do so. Even if ICANN claims that it has had implemented, it is difficult to check the validity of that claim.</div><div>Regards</div><div>Kavouss </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-09 14:16 GMT+01:00 David Post <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com" target="_blank">david.g.post@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
I do not think that the addition of this language is a good idea.
Lengthening the list of 'values' and 'commitments' that ICANN is supposed
to implement will inevitably weaken the Mission Statement. The more
the document suggests that it is ICANN's job to balance a wide variety of
different concerns - enhancing competition and consumer choice,
supporting geographic and cultural diversity, promoting human rights and
the global public interest - the easier it becomes for ICANN to justify
pretty much anything it might do in the future as promoting one or
another of these broad goals. The point that Andrew Sullivan made
recently in connection with the discussions about the GPI is applicable
here, I think:<br><br>
"ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed
functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance
issues that<br>
distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should
not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities
--<br>
lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people
to think ICANN has power it never has had"<br><br>
David<div><div class="h5"><br><br>
At 04:10 PM 1/8/2016, Burr, Becky wrote:<br><br>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5"><font face="Calibri">
</font> As discussed in our call yesterday, we would like to get
some discussion started on some of the issues with the Mission Statement,
Commitments & Core Values elements of the CCWG Proposal. One of
those issues relates to the inclusion of the concept of promoting
“consumer trust” in the Commitments and/or Core Values. The USCIB
comment, for example, urged inclusion of a Commitment/Core Value of
“promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS
marketplace.” ALAC urged inclusion of the consumer trust
language.<br>
This is the topic we will discuss on Monday, during the Ad Hoc meeting
just announced. Feel free to contribute your views in this thread,
particularly if you are not going to be able to participate on
Monday.<br>
<b> ISSUE</b>: Paragraph 3 of the
Affirmation of Commitments describes the goals of the AoC,
saying: <br>
<dl>
<dd> "This document
affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to:
<font color="#333333">… (c) promote competition, consumer trust,
and consumer choice in the </font>DNS
marketplace<font color="#333333">….”</font> <br>
<dd>Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says:<br>
<dd>
<font color="#333333">… If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other
language character sets) have been in operation for one year,
</font>ICANN<font color="#333333"> will organize a review that will
examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has
promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice …. </font>ICANN
will organize a further review of its execution of the above commitments
two years after the first review, and then no less frequently than every
four years. <br><br>
</dd></dd></dd></dl> In the
Initial Draft Proposal, this AoC language was transposed into the Core
Values by requiring ICANN to depend “on market mechanisms to proote and
sustain a healthy competitive environment in the DNS market that enhances
consumer trust and choice.” (Para 107, page 27 Initial Draft
Proposal)<br>
In the 2nd Draft Proposal we elected to delete the reference to
consumer trust in the Mission statement and include it in the Review
section of the Bylaws (See 3rd Report, Appendix 9, Para. 33). The
reason we agreed to make this switch was because it is not a standalone
ICANN commitment in the AoC, rather, it is specifically tied to new gTLD
expansion and specifically tied to a required review. <br>
Several commenters
in both the 2nd and 3rd comment round argued that the Core Values should
specifically call out consumer trust. Some have disputed my
characterization of Paragraph 3 of the AoC (i.e., it states the goals of
the AoC but does not recite a specific commitment), on the grounds that
my characterization is an opinion and not a fact. <br>
QUESTIONS:<br>
Should an AoC provision specific to TLD expansion be leveraged to
impose generalized, independent, and affirmative competition and consumer
trust protection obligations on ICANN?<br>
Does ICANN’s fundamental Mission to ensure “stable and secure operation”
of the DNS, and its various Commitments (i.e., to use processes that
enable
competition,
and to preserve stability, reliability, security, global
interoperability, resilience, and openness) adequately address this
concern? <br><br>
<dl><br>
</dl><br>
J. Beckwith Burr <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy
Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
Office: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" target="_blank" value="+12025332932">+1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" target="_blank" value="+12023526367">+1.202.352.6367</a> /
<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" target="_blank">neustar.biz</a><br>
</div></div><span>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</span></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" target="_blank">
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%A0" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n </a> <br>
music
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0" target="_blank">
http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic </a> publications etc.
<a>
http://www.davidpost.com
</a> <br>
******************************* </div>
<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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>