[CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

[Robin Gross]

I agree with Malcolm and contend that the IPC's view can be included as a minority statement, the way anyone else has the option of filing a minority statement if there is not FULL consensus on a point.  But we have had consensus (as defined in our charter) for many months on this point and it is not acceptable now to remove the language at the final moment because a small minority is exhausting us.  This last minute proposal to delete language that has been shown by two public comment periods to be critical to many segments of the community calls the legitimacy of this entire process into question.  Simply on a process level, it is unacceptable to remove this critical language from the text because a small minority won't agree.  We need to follow our charter and removing this prohibition on content regulation - on which there is consensus - violates our charter and invites others to play the same game, re-open issues, and simply by exhausting everyone, change the text at the last minute to the opposite of what public comment called for.

Robin


On Nov 12, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:

> Dear Co-Chairs
> 
> I think the best way of resolving this would be to note that we have
> ALREADY reached consensus on this TWICE (in order to publish two Draft
> Reports that recommended this provision), and only to assess the public
> comments.
> 
> Remember, either of the previous Draft Reports could have been the final
> outcome; we've only come back to a second and a third because of a
> separate issue (changing the Reference Model, twice).
> 
> When assessing the public comments, we can see overwhelming support for
> the inclusion of this text.
> 
> Moreover, we have found a way to at least partially address the only
> concerns raised in the public comment, by adding
> 
> "ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce
> agreements with contracted parties in service of its Mission."
> 
> This gives what those few who raised concerns at least part of what they
> want, and we have not found any consensus to go further.
> 
> I think the Co-Chairs could quite legitimately say that it is too late
> to open new issues now, and that we should proceed on the basis of the
> previously achieved consensus.
> 
> Malcolm.
> 
> On 12/11/2015 12:20, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> Let me add this: I see once again a disturbing tendency to ignore and override the public comments. We went through two rounds of public comment on this proposal. In both comment periods, there was overwhelming support for the prohibition on content regulation. A consensus-based process that is responsive to the community would not be asking _whether_ we need this prohibition, it would only be asking how to word it.
>> 
>> --MM
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Mueller, Milton L
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 7:15 AM
>>> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; Accountability Community
>>> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding
>>> Mission and Contract
>>> 
>>> Keith
>>> I don't think we have irreconcilable views, and I certainly don't see any
>>> increase in divergence. What I see is some difficulty in formulating the
>>> wording right so that prohibiting ICANN from regulating other services doesn't
>>> get in the way of it regulating the services it is supposed to regulate.
>>> 
>>> Even if there is divergence, it is NOT an issue that can be avoided; it is
>>> fundamental to ICANN's mission limitation and accountability and I would
>>> never agree to a transition without it. We need to resolve this, and we have to
>>> do it in WS1.
>>> 
>>> By the way, it is impossible to avoid resolving this issue. If you do not include
>>> this prescription, you are siding with those who don't want it to be there - and
>>> thus overriding and ignoring the views of the people who want it there.
>>> 
>>> Andrew:
>>> 
>>>>   ICANN shall have no power to act other than in accordance with,
>>>>   and as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.
>>>> 
>>>> With that prohibition on ICANN going out and finding new things to do,
>>>> you have the explicit limitation you want.  No?
>>> 
>>> No. Paul R has addressed this. What we have now is open to too much
>>> interpretation and is not a clear enough limitation. We need to have a clear
>>> and explicit limitation, not a general statement that ICANN will conform to its
>>> mission. We need to make it clear that the mission does NOT include content
>>> regulation.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
>>> Community at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> 
> 
> -- 
>            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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151112/4b90d4a2/signature.asc>