Really good work Stephanie. Thanks.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 20:47:41 -0400
Subject: NCSG response to WHOIS conflicts, another edit

Thanks, I did a fast read, picked up a couple of typos and omissions and added a para on the fundamental absurdity of expecting registrars to put up their hands and ask whether they are breaking the law.  I also mentioned the affirmation of commitments, which I construe as imposing an obligation to consider whether they are acting in the public interest and promoting consumer trust.  Seems clear to me but you might want to check it....probably does not match how this has been construed in the past.
cheers steph

 

I'm happy any time we can refer to the AoC. In our accountability work last year we referred to the AoC multiple times in suggesting that ICANN had a responsibility to be open and transparent. In their responses the ICANN Board brushed off any notion the AoC represented anything approaching "hard law" that they needed to consider. I think your approach is the correct one - just don't expect miracles from a Board that seems to believe that "public interest" is best defined as, in a bit of circular reasoning, whatever is in ICANN's corporate interest (i.e. ICANN is in the public interest thus whatever benefits ICANN itself by definition  is the public interest).

 

I'm not sure how others feel so I didn't make an edit, but is there a way to get to the AoC without impugning motive to the silence of the registrars? You may very well be right in suggesting a specific reason the registrars haven't commented, but I'm a bit hesitant to suggest a reason ("it could be that the registrars are keeping their heads down, a sensible position...) without anything substantive to back it up. We certainly don't want other groups trying to explain the reasoning for our action / inaction on specific issues.

 

Thanks, again, to you and Kathy for such great work.