[CCWG-ACCT] Implications of bottom-up "policy" requirement

[David Post]

Alan - I'm not clear what you mean when you say that

>>AG:- some issues which could reasonably considered "policy", such 
>>as PICs in registry agreements, according to the Registry agreement 
>>Spec 1, are NOT SUBJECT to Consensus Policy"?

Do you mean that the insertion of the PICs in Spec 1 was not 
developed by a consensus process ( I would agree )?  Or that under 
the current language of the proposal, the insertion of the PICs is 
the kind of action that ICANN would be permitted to take without it 
being subject to the consensus process (I don't think I agree )?

David


At 07:54 AM 11/12/2015, Alan Greenberg wrote:

>I am increasingly becoming uneasy with the implications of several 
>of our proposed changes/powers. I would be happy to be convinced 
>that I am missing something and there is no need to be concerned.
>
>The particular interaction that I am thinking of is:
>
>- the new requirement that "policies" be developed through a 
>bottom-up multistakeholder process;
>
>- the fact that we never really define "policy" and therefore what 
>is a policy is subject to interpretation;
>
>- we have contracts which are made up of a combination of historical 
>language, negotiated terms, Consensus Policy and yes, terms which at 
>some point in time may have been included through more arcane processes;
>
>- some issues which could reasonably considered "policy", such as 
>PICs in registry agreements, according to the Registry agreement 
>Spec 1, are NOT SUBJECT to Consensus Policy;
>
>- most contractual provisions are also outside of the limited 
>subjects in Spec 1 (Registry) / Spec 4 (Registrar);
>
>- The IRP which can judge something to be outside of ICANN's mission;
>
>When you put these together, we have the situation that an IRP could 
>judge that some contractual provision is "policy", was not developed 
>through a bottom-up MS process, and therefore violates the Bylaws. 
>Yet such terms are not eligible for a bottom-up MS process, or 
>predate such processes.
>
>I find this EXTREMELY problematic.
>
>Alan
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic  publications 
etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************