Hi,
I did support removing it.
I would also have supported a statement put in that commits the Board to
holding the line on the mission and other bylaws. Though I did not
suggest one and I think it would be redundant as 187 already makes that
point quite strongly:
> ICANN shall have no power to act other than in accordance with, and as
> reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. Without in any way
> limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not engage in
> or use its powers to attempt the regulation of services that use the
> Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that they carry or provide.
I strongly believe this is the Board's responsibility, not the
individual ACSO. And this statements is rather strong.
(Though a 'the Board shall have a backbone' value clause might have value.)
As an example of other ACSO not being under the obligation to act with
the bylaws: in the GNSO. We get legal opinion of whether our PDPs are
in scope by legal in the issues reports. Yet we can vote to do a PDP
anyway, and can send recommendations to the Board that may or may not be
within the Bylaws. It is up to them to tell us no if we go beyond the
bylaws.
If we want to commit all ACSO to only suggest advice or recommendations
that are within the bylaws, we have a much bigger job to do.
avri
On 04-Aug-15 07:53, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Sorry Ed, I didn't mean to imply that you were personally responsible
> for the change, it was the Royal you meaning the CCWG as a whole
>
> Milton L Mueller
> Professor
> Syracuse School of Information Studies
>
> On Aug 4, 2015, at 07:09, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>> Actually, Milton, I personally didn't alter any language. The only
>> words I'm personally responsible for are those in my minority
>> statements on page 180 of the report. I'm hopeful that public
>> comments will cause changes to the proposal so that I will be able to
>> support it. At the moment I sadly am unable to do so. No transition
>> is better than a bad transition. We still have 2.5 months to make it
>> better until it comes before Council for a vote - I'd suggest we take
>> advantage of that opportunity.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From*: "Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Sent*: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 3:19 AM
>> *To*: "[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>,
>> "[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>"
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Subject*: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG Accountability Report is Now Out
>>
>>
>> I repeat what I said to Avri. ICANN’s mission and core values speak
>> to, and are supposed to bind, ICANN – not GAC. By altering the
>> language in the way you did, you let ICANN off the hook, not GAC.
>>
>>
>>
>> --MM
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
>> Of *Edward Morris
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 3, 2015 8:15 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG Accountability Report is Now Out
>>
>>
>>
>> The government's were very sensitive about any encroachment upon
>> their defined GAC territory or any attempt to interfere with their
>> independence, the debate over stress test 18 (consensus within GAC)
>> being the principal example. My recollection is that Spain and Brazil
>> were the most vocal demanding the changes you mention, Milton. As
>> Avri has conveyed, governments felt it was the Board's responsibility
>> to determine compliance with the Bylaws, not theirs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From*: "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Sent*: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 12:27 AM
>> *To*: [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject*: Re: CCWG Accountability Report is Now Out
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The point was that the Board is responsible for making sure the advice
>> it accepts is consistent with the bylaws. GAC does not accept that
>> responsibility. Then again, I know of no other ACSO that is making that
>> decsion of whether their recommendations or advice are consistent with
>> the bylaws.. It is up to the Board, and the the IRP to decide whether
>> something is consistent with the bylaws. That is their job.
>>
>> As for whether it is a bad as it looks to you, probably not.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 03-Aug-15 19:00, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> >
>> > Robin and other fellow NCSG-ers:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regarding human rights, I have been going through the CCWG report and
>> > found something very disturbing.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On page 33, which is part of the section on “Principles” I noticed a
>> > big loophole opening up in the attempt to constrain ICANN’s actions by
>> > defining a limited mission. Paragraph 224 has been modified in a way
>> > that makes it LESS restrictive than before. It says that ICANN must
>> > take into account advice of governments, and the former language about
>> > how the advice must be consistent with its bylaws and its fundamental
>> > commitments and core values has been struck out.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Can anyone who was in Paris tell me how this happened and whether it
>> > really is as bad as it looks?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf
>> > Of *Robin Gross
>> > *Sent:* Monday, August 3, 2015 5:06 PM
>> > *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> > *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] CCWG Accountability Report is Now Out
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The CCWG-Accountability report is out:
>> >
>> > http://bit.ly/1IUzwJB <http://t.co/5nYZyX5nII>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > One important and positive recommendation is the report is that ICANN
>> > include a commitment to human rights in its bylaws. But there's a lot
>> > of other significant changes in there, so please read the report.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > NCSG will have a webinar on 5 August to go over this report and have
>> > any discussion on it participants want.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The comment period is now for 40 days.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Robin
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
