[CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Not sure I buy into the Xmas tree analogy, especially when trying to
delineate values.

And while I have not had to make this argument in a while, I still
maintain that as a vassal of the NTIA, ICANN would have been constrained
to respect human rights and that the loss of NTIA forces us to take some
responsibility for that as a corporation, especially in regard to an
open Internet. 

I still find it rather shocking and depressing that many, including our
Board are fighting against human rights so hard at iCANN.  Option 2b
would be a travesty and 2c is just a fig leaf, better than nothing, but
barely.

As for consumer trust, that may be a similar situation.  NTIA has shown
by its participation in the AOC how much it cares about consumer trust,
and I think that if the complaints against ICANN for consumer issues got
any worse than they are, we would hear about from the NTIA and it  would
be a consideration for any IANA renewal.  I would hope that they would
reject any plan that did not promise an effort to maintain and improve ours.


avri

On 12-Jan-16 16:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 07:08:20PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
>
>> The language on human rights would be a departure from that
>> standard, and the introduction of a generalized “consumer trust” role
>> would be yet another.  Apart from these two concepts, all of the
>> assigned roles and responsibilities appear in ICANN’s existing
>> Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and the White Paper itself.
> I think the above is an important argument, and it takes on more
> importance when we reflect on previous observations from the NTIA that
> this accountability work ought not to be an opportunity to remake
> ICANN.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus