[CCWG-ACCT] A modest attempt to advance the "Mission scoping" discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Wed Jan 20 21:27:45 UTC 2016

Thanks for your views.
It make the task more complex .
The issue was not as complex as you the one zou referred to are talking
If we follow this path ,we generate a new discussion and  may  end it up
February 2017.
Regards Kavouss

2016-01-20 20:29 GMT+01:00 Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams <
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>:

> Mathieu,
> Thank you for the suggestion, however ... The authors and the various
> eventual applicants to ICANN in 2000 and 2004 and 2010 for delegations
> for linguistic and/or cultural and/or municipal and/or regional service
> registries, as I recall them did not, in general, frame the agreements
> they proposed within their eventual applications as being made for the
> purpose of competitive advantage in a contention process.
> The authors of the applications in 2010 for delegations other than those
> for linguistic and/or cultural and/or municipal and/or regional service
> registries, again, as I recall them, rationally evaluated whether their
> business models could be achieved under the (presumed enforced)
> restrictions
> of the "community-type" (which bobbled through each of the revisions of the
> draft AGB, in form, and in dispositive function).
> My point being that there are "voluntary commitments" such as services to
> users who prefer a Catalan namespace, or a cooperative-operated registry,
> absent any application impediment such as string similarity. Dissimilarly,
> there are "voluntary commitments" which appear to have no meaning outside
> of the application type restriction of 2004, and more recently, the similar
> string contention resolution mechanism of 2010.
> We can distinguish between these, and should, as the exercise of "voluntary
> commitments" for the purposes of gaming type restrictions (2004) and/or
> gaming contention (2010), substitutes (gamed) implementation for the policy
> of record.
> > 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,
> > etc.
> As a process coda, prior to the June 2010 meeting in Bruxelles, there was
> no "single user" application type in any draft of the AGB. Our current
> problem contains the implementation-trumps-policy warts of the 2010 round,
> and we cannot pretend that policy has been made transparently, accountably,
> and from the bottom-up, though we can hope that it is in the present, and
> will be in the future.
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> Eugene, Oregon
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160120/a6ce80a8/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list