Hi,
I read your comments but am still working my through the bylaws changes
comparng to the output from the CWg & CCWG.
I did not know where statements like ' is unacceptable to NCSG' come
from. At first reading I do not find myself nodding in agreement but do
not want to get into it until I have had time read the whole set of
bylaws. And to compare them to the language we submitted to see if
there are deviations.
One thing I am sure of is that I do not want us to reopen issues. If
there is a direct contradiction to the language the CWG & CCWG submitted
on the other hand, we should flag that.
I think you should feel free to send these comments in as your comments
without the references to what NCSG does or does not find acceptable. I
will send in my comments as my comments, also without such phrases. I
will be a few more days yet before I have had a chance to do the work.
And if we want NCSG comments we should work through the NCSG-PC.
avri
On 04-Apr-16 14:21, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> I want to send these comments to the bylaws coordination group soon.
> There have been no substantive comments so far but I know it’s only 24
> hours. Should I wait? Is anyone planning to comment?
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
> Of *Mueller, Milton L
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 3, 2016 1:56 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* HR activists take note: A review of the draft bylaws on the
> mission, core values and commitments
>
>
>
> THE PROPOSED NEW BYLAWS ON MISSION, CORE VALUES AND COMMITMENTS
>
>
>
> We received the draft bylaws this morning. I have only had time to
> review Article 1, which is important because it contains the mission,
> etc. I advance my initial ideas and will get feedback here before
> posting to the CCWG or bylaws-coord list.
>
>
>
> In general, the Mission, Core Values and Commitments bylaw language
> has been faithfully drafted to reflect the concerns of the CCWG. There
> are three major exceptions/problems. One is the section on renewals
> [Section 1.1, (d) (ii) F], the other two are Appendices G1 and G2.
>
>
>
> Section 1.1 (d) (ii) F
>
>
>
> "any renewals of agreements described in subsections (A)-(D) pursuant
> to their terms and conditions for renewal." This is an unacceptable
> deviation from the agreement we had regarding grandfathering. The idea
> was that _existing_ agreements would not be constrained by the new
> mission limitations, but that anything in the future would be subject
> to the new mission limitations. By extending existing exceptions or
> ambiguities into the future via renewals, we are making the new
> mission limitations practically irrelevant. We need to push to change
> this.
>
>
>
> APPENDICES G1 and G2
>
>
>
> The items in Appendix G are carve-outs from the mission limitations.
> That is, they expressly authorize certain actions as authorized and
> thus not challengable under the mission limitations. Therefore, we
> need to be extremely careful about what is included there. G1 refers
> to registrars, G2 to registries.
>
>
>
> In G1, the bullet point on resolution of disputes exempts any and all
> ICANN policies regarding the USE of domain names. This broad exemption
> is unacceptable to NCSG. Furthermore, its meaning is unclear. I do not
> know what it means to say that dispute resolution is limited to
> disputes "regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to
> the use of such domain names" and then to add "but including where
> such policies take into account use of the domain names)." The
> meaaning is unclear but we suspect it will be construed as a blanket
> exemption for imposing on registrars any policies regarding how
> domains are used, which could include content. I note that Appendix G2
> applicable to registries does not contain this language. We want to
> get rid of it in G1 also.
>
>
>
> The bullet point on cross-ownership restrictions needs to make it
> clear that restrictions are allowed only insofar as cross ownership
> affects the core values of security, stability or competition. That
> is, I see no basis for giving ICANN or the community a blanket right
> to restrict cross-ownership for any reason they want; such
> restrictions should only be used if they are a means to the end of
> promoting or preserving the mission or other core values, such as
> security, stability or competition. The best option would be to delete
> this part of the G! and G2 and make all cross-ownership policies
> subject to a mission challenge. Cross ownership policies that
> demonstrably advance the core vales of competition, security,
> stability, etc. should have no trouble passing this test;
> cross-ownership limitations that do not clearly meet this test should
> be subject to challenge.
>
>
>
> The bullet points on "reservation of registered names" MUST be
> conditioned on respect for freedom of expression rights. I have no
> trouble with leaving names reservations in as a general exemption from
> mission challenges, but only if that power, which obviously can be
> abused or over-extended, is limited by concerns about openness,
> freedom and innovation on the Internet. Along these lines, we need to
> clarify the term "intellectual property" to say "legally recognized
> intellectual property rights."
>
>
>
> Other Substantive issues
>
> ------------------
>
>
>
> Section 1.1 (a) (iii)
>
> "Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of
> Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers." I thought
> IANA and IETF, not ICANN, do this. ICANN does it only insofar as it is
> contracted to be the IFO. Does this belong here?
>
>
>
> Section 1.2 (a) (vi)
>
> Please delete the words "that enhance ICANN’s effectiveness." I don’t
> see why these words are needed. They seem to undercut or make
> conditional the clear meaning of the first part of the sentence, which
> states that ICANN is accountable to its community through the
> mechanisms defined in the bylaws.
>
>
>
> Section 1.2 (b) (vi)
>
> modify the sentence to read: "governments and public authorities are
> responsible for public policy IN THEIR OWN JURISDICTION.."
>
>
>
> Clarity, copy editing and redundancy issues:
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Section 1.1 (a) (i), first bullet point:
>
> it says "facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience,
> security and/or stability". No reason to have an "and/or" here, it
> should just be "and". We want them all, and in other parts of the
> bylaws where substantially the same list exists there is an "and."
>
>
>
> Section 1.1 (a) (i), second bullet point:
>
> "That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based
> multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure
> operation of the Internet’s unique names systems." This sentence
> should end at "multistakeholder process." The addition of "and
> designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s
> unique names systems" is redundant, it is already stated in the first
> bullet point.
>
>
>
> Section 1.2 (a) (i)
>
> Needlessly awkward and confusing wording. Why not just say “Administer
> the DNS in a way that preserves and enhances its operational
> stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience
> and openness.” ?
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
>
>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
