[WP1] Frozen: AoC reviews into bylaws

[Steve Crocker]

Jordan, et al,

Attached is my markup of the material on bringing AoC reviews into the ICANN bylaws.  In brief, I think this is an excellent idea and I strongly support it.  Further, I appreciate the modifications that have already been made from the detailed language in the AoC to the language proposed here.  That said, a bit more work is needed.

My comments in the marked up attachment cover the following (language from the document highlighted followed by my comment):

On page 3:
> although the designation of sensitive / confidential should not be in ICANN’s sole discretion.


I fully understand and appreciate the reason for inserting this caveat, but I don’t understand how this caveat helps.  When push comes to shove, ICANN Counsel is going to insist on adherence to the non-disclosure rules else the requested information won’t be forthcoming.  I suppose you can threaten to escalate but that’s not a productive path.

On page 6:

> The Board shall cause a review of ICANN’s execution of this commitment after any batched round of new gTLDs have been in operation for one year

This language presumes the addition of new TLDs will be done in rounds similar to the current round of new gTLDs.  What happens if the process evolves toward continuous operation?

Even if the system of rounds is maintained, it is likely the process will settle down.  Successive reviews will be progressively less meaningful. 



On page 7:

> SUCH EXISTING POLICY REQUIRES THAT ICANN IMPLEMENT MEASURES TO MAINTAIN TIMELY, UNRESTRICTED AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO ACCURATE AND COMPLETE WHOIS INFORMATION, INCLUDING REGISTRANT, TECHNICAL, BILLING, AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT INFORMATION. 

This is the language in the AoC that was inappropriate from the beginning and must not be continued.  The entire thrust of the effort kicked off by the Board in November 2012 was to examine the purpose and expectations of the registrant data system, particularly including the potential for tiered access, protection of registrant data, etc.

I have no problem with keeping some form of review, but the language needs to be adjusted to match the potential for future systems that may emerge from the ongoing examination of the registration data.


> its implementation meets the LEGITIMATE NEEDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROMOTES CONSUMER TRUST.
This language puts Law Enforcement in the premier position with respect to evaluating the effectiveness of the registration data system.  Law Enforcement is indeed important, but not to the exclusion of all others.  “Promotes consumer trust” is too vague to cover all of the competing forces.

On page 8:
> The CWG-Stewardship has also proposed an IANA Function Review that should be added to the ICANN Bylaws, as a Fundamental Bylaw. 
> 

What happens in the event the IANA function is moved away from ICANN?  It would be impossible to comply with this bylaw.  It seems to me a termination clause is needed.



Thanks,

Steve








On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> From Steve's team, please find attached the frozen document on the incorporation of the AoC reviews into the bylaws, for discussion in Paris.
> 
> Thanks for all the work done on this.
> 
> best,
> Jordan
> 
> -- 
> Jordan Carter
> 
> Chief Executive 
> InternetNZ
> 
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz 
> Skype: jordancarter
> 
> A better world through a better Internet 
> 
> <2015-07-12-DRAFT-PC2--6-2--AoC-Reviews.docx><2015-07-12-DRAFT-PC2--6-2--AoC-Reviews.pdf>_______________________________________________
> WP1 mailing list
> WP1 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp1

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150714/2b6acb91/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2015-07-12-DRAFT-PC2--6-2--AoC-Reviews w sdc.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 54142 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150714/2b6acb91/2015-07-12-DRAFT-PC2--6-2--AoC-Reviewswsdc-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp1/attachments/20150714/2b6acb91/attachment-0003.html>