[CCWG-ACCT] A modest attempt to advance the "Mission scoping" discussion
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Wed Jan 20 13:53:30 UTC 2016
Dear Avri, Dear All,
I am chiming into this long thread because I believe Avri's point below is
very relevant, and echoes in other terms the concern voiced by our Legal
Advisors a few days ago. To quote Holly's email :
" For clients facing similar dilemmas, a common approach is to
draft general principles into governing documents and provide a mechanism
for interpreting them in specific situations. We recommend that the CCWG
agree upon and articulate mission principles at a general level
appropriate for inclusion in the Bylaws, understanding that refinement and
interpretation will be needed thereafter.
Based on the assumption that we would accept this advice, and that the IRP
is the "mechanism for interpretation", we would have to focus on what
general principles we can agree on, and only include this set of
principles as part of our group's recommendations. Based on my reading of
this thread, and the CCWG call discussions, it seems to me that there are
some areas of agreement.
First I believe the key principles of the 3rd draft remain acceptable :
a. ICANN shall not impose regulations on services that use the
Internets unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or
b. ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce
agreements with contracted parties in furtherance service of its Mission.
Then I noticed what there seems to be agreement that related challenges of
Icann decision would be focused on challenging the decision to enter into
an agreement,, rather than the decision to enforce an agreement.
And most importantly, regarding the discussion about "voluntary
commitments", as Avri points out, we might have a way forward if we were
to agree that *the scope of acceptable commitments in any agreement should
be defined by policy* (with all the related process safeguards, including
bottom up nature as well as advisory inputs), instead of implementation.
Then it would be up to the policy makers to define whether eligibility
conditions are appropriate or not and should be enforced, whether a
specific form of stakeholder consultation or governance is acceptable,
I hope this is helpful to the discussion.
PS: I have voluntarily left aside the "grandparenting" discussion which
should be another thread. Our lawyers raised 5 very clear and good
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de
Envoyé : mercredi 20 janvier 2016 06:02
À : accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the conversation ongoing on this list, but
this seems more like gTLD policy making than clarifying without changing
the mission. It is almost as if we want to preclude the freedom of the
GNSO to make bottom up multistakeholder decisions about gTLDs or community
gTLDs that may be decided upon in the future.
We are getting into a very murky issue that is still the subject of
reconsideration, CEP and IRP processes. In fact more all the time.
I think we are trying to do too much at the last minute with manipulation
of the mission to meet people's political ideas about what ICANN should
and should not do. My suggestions is that we go back to the wording for
draft 3 and just make the minimal changes needed by the the IETF and the
RIRs and leave discussions about ICANN's mission for
WS2 or elsewhen - this is a long discussion we are embarking on.
Personally I am very committed to the policies that the GNSO initiated on
communities and while I think there is a lot of work to do on them in the
next PDP, I do not think it is work that is appropriate at this point in
time for this process. We are supposed to be working on accountability
not the mission or the gTLD program. but if this is going to become a
question about what is acceptable in terms of communities, their
commitments and the contracts they make with ICANN on behalf of the
communities they intend to serve, I will have a whole lot more to say. I
am currently saving those arguments for the subsequent gTLD PDP, but if
those issues need to be fought here and now, I guess I am willing.
Is this part of the WS1 task?
If so, why?
I do not think this is part of the requirement for WS1 and transition.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community