[CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion

Mueller, Milton L milton at gatech.edu
Tue Jan 19 13:54:12 UTC 2016

> -----Original Message-----
> So if an applicant includes obligations in the application, it is ok for ICANN to
> enforce those commitments? 

Isn't that what you want?

> What¹s the principle - freedom of contract?

You tell me what the principle is. It is your position. I am simply saying it is acceptable as long as it is truly a voluntary commitment
I think the whole business of enforcing commitments that would be outside of mission if it were not voluntary is problematic, but you say you love it. So you tell me what you think the principle is.

> But if GAC, ALAC, or someone else urges ICANN to pick one applicant over
> another, anyone can challenge that [what? The urging, the selection,
> something else?]?  You¹re disqualified if GAC endorses your application?

This is an uncharacteristically exaggerated and leading question. Really, Becky, we've got enough rhetorical pollution in this discourse you don't need to add to it. 
Let's go through this step by step. 

The "urging" obviously cannot be challenged unless it becomes the basis of a decision. 
GAC shouldn't be endorsing individual applications AT ALL, as you should know, but if it does,  it is only a problem if its endorsement is based on the applicant's  adoption of commitments imposed on it by others, and the enforcement of which would exceed ICANN's mission.
The endorsement of GAC is clearly not a problem if any commitments don't exceed the mission and/or ICANN's board does not approve the application.

I hope that's clear now

> 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 1/17/16, 2:58 PM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> Just for the record, I am a strong supporter of community TLDs and
> >>therefore
> >> think these kinds of commitments should be enforceable
> >>
> >>
> >> J. Beckwith Burr
> >
> >Becky, this is a non sequitur.
> >
> >The issue is not whether there can be or should be community TLDs, but
> >whether the wider community that makes policy within ICANN, such as
> >ALAC or GAC, can impose enforceable commitments on proposed
> community
> >TLDs as a condition of their acceptance. If the original proposer of the
> >community TLD wants to bind themselves to do something (e.g., require all
> >registrants to wear purple hats) I don't care. If GAC, GNSO, or ALAC
> >conspire to get ICANN to reject a community TLD applicant because it
> >doesn't require its registrants to wear purple hats, ICANN is straying
> >from its mission.
> >
> >Furthermore, if ICANN has two similar competing applicants for the same
> >TLD string, and GAC, ALAC, GNSO or whoever urges ICANN to choose
> >applicant A over applicant B because A promises to force all its
> >registrants to wear purple hats, then that should be challengeable via
> >IRP as exceeding ICANN's mission.
> >
> >Do we agree on that much?
> >
> >
> >Dr. Milton L Mueller
> >Professor, School of Public Policy
> >Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> >Internet Governance Project
> >
> >

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list