<html>
<body>
Becky, can you please explain why you think that 3.c is there solely as
an introduction to 9.3, whereas 3.a, 3.b and 3.d clearly have a wider
scope?<br><br>
For those who do not have an AoC handy, I reproduce the section in
question here.<br><br>
<i>3. This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including
commitments to: (a) ensure that decisions made related to the global
technical coordination of the DNS are made in the public interest and are
accountable and transparent; (b) preserve the security, stability and
resiliency of the DNS; (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and
consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (d) facilitate international
participation in DNS technical coordination. <br><br>
</i>Alan<br><br>
At 13/01/2016 02:01 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Come on Avri - I could say that
we don¡¯t have sufficient cause - let alone<br>
authority - to amend the AoC, but I don¡¯t think that moves the ball<br>
forward. Rather, and respecting the integrity and good intentions
of<br>
people on various sides of this argument, we have a strong
disagreement<br>
about the meaning of the AoC on the consumer trust issue.<br><br>
One group reads Paragraph 3 as a ¡°chapeau¡± text introducing Paragraph
9.3,<br>
in which the consumer trust issue is exclusively limited to TLD
expansion<br>
and calls for a review on the subject. I, along with many others,
acting<br>
in good faith believe that this is unquestionably the proper reading
of<br>
the AoC. <br><br>
I understand that another group reads Paragraph 3 as creating a
separate,<br>
stand-alone and generalized obligation to promote consumer trust in
the<br>
DNS marketplace that should be reflected in Article 1 of the
Bylaws.<br><br>
I accept that this reading is taken in good faith, but I believe it
is<br>
inconsistent with standard principles applicable to textual<br>
interpretation, let alone statutory construction, and an
extraordinary<br>
expansion of ICANN¡¯s remit. I know what protecting and
promoting<br>
¡°consumer trust¡± means to a consumer protection regulator with
sovereign<br>
authority. I don¡¯t think that¡¯s ICANN¡¯s job - although I do
agree that<br>
the AoC gives ICANN specific obligations in this regard in connection
with<br>
TLD expansion. That is being transposed into the Bylaws.<br><br>
But if we cannot reach consensus about charging ICANN with a general<br>
obligation with to promote consumer trust in the DNS marketplace -
which<br>
apparently we cannot - then we need to find a way to proceed, unless<br>
everyone just wants to keep repeating their views and casting
aspersions<br>
about the good faith of people with different views. So, my
suggestion is<br>
WS2. <br><br>
<br>
J. Beckwith Burr <br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy<br>
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<br>
<<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
On 1/13/16, 12:12 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org>
wrote:<br><br>
>Hi,<br>
><br>
>In this case, I do not believe we will have sufficient cause to
request<br>
>that the AOC be cancelled by mutual agreement. If all of the
AOC<br>
>concerns can't be brought into the bylaws, then they can't be said to
be<br>
>covered by the the By Laws.<br>
><br>
>Of course ICANN can still unilaterally abandon the AOC.<br>
><br>
>I also think we may need to be much more careful to make sure we
have<br>
>agreed upon definitions for all terms in the By Laws and not just
those<br>
>that belong to concepts some people are not comfortable with. I
know<br>
>there are some terms for which I have not been absolutely sure of
the<br>
>meaning and on which we have never had real dialogue. For
example in an<br>
>international context what do we really mean by 'promote',<br>
>'competition', and 'consumer choice'. I know I am not
comfortable with<br>
>the way some people define these terms. What are our criteria
for these<br>
>terms and for knowing when we have achieved them? How can a
review<br>
>decide that we have adequate global competition? How active do
we need<br>
>to be about promoting competition, especially in a global context
with<br>
>economies that have different capabilities. How much choice
is<br>
>sufficient consumer choice? I do not believe we have any better
idea,<br>
>or have had adequate dialogue and consensus on the meaning of
these<br>
>terms and concepts. I do believe we generally understand
them as well<br>
>as we understand consumer trust, but not better.<br>
><br>
>I am also sure I can find lack of dialogue and ambiguity on many
other<br>
>terms used in the By Laws. Is that the process we must now open
up?<br>
><br>
>Lastly I think it is in the process of the multistakeholder AOC
type<br>
>reviews that we work on our evolving consensus definitions. I
am<br>
>certain that we now have a much deeper understanding of
Accountability<br>
>and Transparency after the two ATRT reviews than we did before
those<br>
>reviews.<br>
><br>
>avri<br>
><br>
>On 13-Jan-16 10:59, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
>> I understand your point Avri, but (as I said, unlike the HR
issue) we<br>
>>have<br>
>> had no real dialogue on what ©øconsumer trust©÷ encompasses
(outside of<br>
>>the<br>
>> new gTLD review context), so it seems to me that moving the
issue to WS2<br>
>> is the only possible approach.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy<br>
>> General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
>> Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /
neustar.biz<br>
>>
<<a href="http://www.neustar.biz/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 1/12/16, 5:42 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Hi,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Not sure I buy into the Xmas tree analogy, especially when
trying to<br>
>>> delineate values.<br>
>>><br>
>>> And while I have not had to make this argument in a while, I
still<br>
>>> maintain that as a vassal of the NTIA, ICANN would have
been<br>
>>>constrained<br>
>>> to respect human rights and that the loss of NTIA forces us
to take<br>
>>>some<br>
>>> responsibility for that as a corporation, especially in
regard to an<br>
>>> open Internet. <br>
>>><br>
>>> I still find it rather shocking and depressing that many,
including our<br>
>>> Board are fighting against human rights so hard at
iCANN. Option 2b<br>
>>> would be a travesty and 2c is just a fig leaf, better than
nothing, but<br>
>>> barely.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As for consumer trust, that may be a similar
situation. NTIA has shown<br>
>>> by its participation in the AOC how much it cares about
consumer trust,<br>
>>> and I think that if the complaints against ICANN for
consumer issues<br>
>>>got<br>
>>> any worse than they are, we would hear about from the NTIA
and it<br>
>>>would<br>
>>> be a consideration for any IANA renewal. I would hope
that they would<br>
>>> reject any plan that did not promise an effort to maintain
and improve<br>
>>> ours.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> avri<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 12-Jan-16 16:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote:<br>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:08:20PM +0000, Burr, Becky
wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> The language on human rights would be a departure
from that<br>
>>>>> standard, and the introduction of a generalized
©øconsumer trust©÷ role<br>
>>>>> would be yet another. Apart from these two
concepts, all of the<br>
>>>>> assigned roles and responsibilities appear in
ICANN©ös existing<br>
>>>>> Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and the White
Paper itself.<br>
>>>> I think the above is an important argument, and it takes
on more<br>
>>>> importance when we reflect on previous observations from
the NTIA that<br>
>>>> this accountability work ought not to be an opportunity
to remake<br>
>>>> ICANN.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Best regards,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> A<br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ---<br>
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.<br>
>>> <br>
>>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiv" eudora="autourl">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiv</a>
<br>
>>>ir<br>
>>> <br>
>>>us&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO<br>
>>>P8<br>
>>> <br>
>>>WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9mx-BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=90feHGO6z1UakNU<br>
>>>Km<br>
>>> 1puqej2hiSN0i1qKEBXIp7F1sY&e=<br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
>>> <br>
>>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma" eudora="autourl">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma</a>
<br>
>>>n_<br>
>>> <br>
>>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_<br>
>>>lU<br>
>>> <br>
>>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9<br>
>>>mx<br>
>>>
-BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=r-pEdrcIahOTlTQ9i-oail-6pa2AEY55jJwnzefh8U8&e=<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
>> <br>
>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman" eudora="autourl">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman</a>
<br>
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_<br>
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PF_NdosT4JCr5C4OVB8<br>
>>QdQB7quVw9enLpLj_xII31sI&s=eMSU5H8PvaY5Mf0Gi1SEuiQhpT01vxOvZGJgpclgqyE&e=<br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
>---<br>
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.<br>
><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir" eudora="autourl">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir</a>
<br>
>us&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8<br>
>WDDkMr4k&m=PF_NdosT4JCr5C4OVB8QdQB7quVw9enLpLj_xII31sI&s=6CL2_4RFJr5TCJVan<br>
>JlKVPZ87BU4rKMhz9XZ7Hdz-XA&e=<br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<br>
><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman" eudora="autourl">
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman</a>
_<br>
>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU<br>
>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=PF_NdosT4JCr5C4OVB8QdQ<br>
>B7quVw9enLpLj_xII31sI&s=eMSU5H8PvaY5Mf0Gi1SEuiQhpT01vxOvZGJgpclgqyE&e=
<br><br>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote></body>
</html>