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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Wed Jan 13 17:12:34 UTC 2016


In this case, I do not believe we will have sufficient cause to request
that the AOC be cancelled by mutual agreement.  If all of the AOC
concerns can't be brought into the bylaws, then they can't be said to be
covered by the the By Laws.

Of course ICANN can still unilaterally abandon the AOC.

I also think we may need to be much more careful to make sure we have
agreed upon definitions for all terms in the By Laws and not just those
that belong to concepts some people are not comfortable with.  I know
there are some terms for which I have not been absolutely sure of the
meaning and on which we have never had real dialogue.  For example in an
international context what do we really mean by 'promote',
'competition', and 'consumer choice'.  I know I am not comfortable with
the way some people define these terms.  What are our criteria for these
terms and for knowing when we have achieved them?  How can a review
decide that we have adequate global competition?  How active do we need
to be about promoting competition, especially in a global context with
economies that have different capabilities.  How much choice is
sufficient consumer choice?  I do not believe we have any better idea,
or have had adequate dialogue and consensus on the meaning of these
terms and concepts.  I do believe we  generally understand them as well
as we understand consumer trust, but not better.

I am also sure I can find lack of dialogue and ambiguity on many other
terms used in the By Laws.  Is that the process we must now open up?

Lastly I think it is in the process of the multistakeholder AOC type
reviews that we work on our evolving consensus definitions.  I am
certain that we now have a much deeper understanding of Accountability
and Transparency after the two ATRT reviews than we did before those


On 13-Jan-16 10:59, Burr, Becky wrote:
> I understand your point Avri, but (as I said, unlike the HR issue) we have
> had no real dialogue on what ³consumer trust² encompasses (outside of the
> new gTLD review context), so it seems to me that moving the issue to WS2
> is the only possible approach.
> J. Beckwith Burr 
> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
> General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
> On 1/12/16, 5:42 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 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 ³consumer trust² role
>>>> would be yet another.  Apart from these two concepts, all of the
>>>> assigned roles and responsibilities appear in ICANN¹s 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir
>> us&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8
>> WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9mx-BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=90feHGO6z1UakNUKm
>> 1puqej2hiSN0i1qKEBXIp7F1sY&e=
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>> listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>> Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=mPCiA33T_ipM9xYTRwc9mx
>> -BySpmmwfZsdwlQRjVXhM&s=r-pEdrcIahOTlTQ9i-oail-6pa2AEY55jJwnzefh8U8&e= 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list