[CCWG-ACCT] regulatory/mission issue WS2

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Fri Nov 6 19:21:32 UTC 2015


On 06/11/2015 17:30, Burr, Becky wrote:
> All:  At the risk of causing a riot, I confess that am getting
> increasingly concerned that we are confusing ourselves (and possibly the
> bylaws) by trying to include and explain the prohibition on regulation
> of services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers or the content
> that such services carry or provide.  Perhaps we would be better off
> relying on a clear Mission statement and enhanced accountability
> mechanisms to prevent mission creep? 

While I appreciate the difficult position you are in as Rapporteur in
trying to find a solution, I think that's very dangerous and indeed
unwise suggestion.

Firstly, very many people consider this clause to be an essential
component of trusting ICANN, independent of US oversight. You are only
proposing deleting this in response to pressure from the intellectual
property community, a stakegroup that many other suspect (not without
reason) of aspirations to turn ICANN into precisely what is prohibited
by this clause. Deleting it will be seen as only confirming those fears.

Secondly, there was very strong support for this clause in the previous
public comment rounds - not just the previous one, but also the first.
Deleting it (especially in the context of the rather compressed process
we plan going forward to completion) will be seen as removing a major
promised protection at the last moment, and so will also invite
trenchant criticism on process grounds, on top of criticism of the
substance of the change.

Thirdly, your argument that it is duplicative and so unnecessary, while
not unreasonable, is by no means overwhelmingly persuasive. One of the
mischiefs that this clause seeks to prevent is ICANN claiming that it is
entitled to say "In order to register and use a domain, you must comply
with community developed policy for domains *regardless of the content
of that policy and with no limits on what that policy might contain*".
Absent this clause, it is not easy to see conclusive evidence that such
a position would be invalid. I know that you place great reliance on
Specification 1, and as a Registry for whom Specification 1 is part of
your Registry agreement, I can see why that would satisfy your own
interests. But others are entitled to fear that future rounds may use a
different Specification 1, or none at all, or that Registries might
choose to waive Specification 1 and so increase ICANN's role without any
consent from other parts of the ICANN community. Registries are not the
only stakeholder group with an interest in seeing the substance of
Specification 1 maintained, and others who do have no reason to be as
satisfied by Specification 1 as a mechanism as Registries may be.

Fourthly, your argument that a general limitation to enumerated powers
makes a specific exclusion unnecessary is hardly novel. In the time of
your own country's adoption of its Constitution, a central point of
controversy was the same question, namely whether the Bill of Rights was
still necessary, or was unnecessary and indeed undesirable because the
Federal government was only granted enumerated powers. You know that the
proponents of a Bill of Rights won the argument then, and were
vindicated by subsequent history.

Finally, perhaps most importantly, this clause provides the most clear
and visible commitment that can be pointed to as satisfying the NTIA
requirement that the future ICANN, after implementation of our reforms,
can be relied upon to continue to support an open Internet. This is a
core NTIA criterion. Moreover, this is an issue that is not only of
interest to major stakeholder groups within the ICANN community, but has
been a central point of focus in Congressional attention to this
transition. The last-minute removal of this clause could have a
destabilising on political support for transition.

I am on record as having said that if we cannot get consensus we should
revert to the text of the two previous drafts for public comment.
However, the text I offered most recently as a compromise appeared to be
getting serious consideration from Greg and the IPC

"ICANN shall only act strictly in accordance with its Mission. Without
in any way limiting the foregoing, ICANN shall not engage in or use its
powers to attempt the regulation of services that use the Internet's
unique identifiers to enable or facilitate their reachability over the
Internet, nor shall it regulate the content that those services carry or
provide. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and
enforce agreements with contracted parties in service of its Mission."

I think it's therefore unfortunate that you should propose deletion,
upsetting the possibility of the consensus that had seemed to be close.

In the light of these arguments, I hope you feel it best to withdraw
your suggestion.



Malcolm.

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA




More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list