Milton has described what one of my students referred to as ICANN's
Competence Creep. Nail on the head.

+1...





Mark Leiser, BS, LLB (Hon) | PhD Candidate | University of Strathclyde |
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science | The Law School l Centre for
Internet Law and Policy | PGR Room, 141 St. James Road | Lord Hope Building
| Glasgow G4 OLT | Tel. +44 7719739090



Email: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser
LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro
Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts


On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Hmmm.
>
> ICANN is not a corporation that produces a “product” – it is a regulator
> and coordinator  of the global DNS. It uses the private nonprofit corporate
> form only so that it can transcend national jurisdiction. Thus, the
> “corporate responsibility” model is off target. If people outside the
> “walled city” of ICANN are asking how it is performing in terms of
> corporate social responsibility they are asking the wrong question. But
> frankly, I don’t think many people are asking that. I deal with lots of
> people, including hundreds of students, who are not involved with ICANN and
> I have never heard that question asked.
>
>
>
> ICANN’s biggest problem is the tendency for people to “overload” DNS
> regulation with social policy concerns (such as .doctor) that are better
> handled in other venues.
>
>
>
> What you need from ICANN is a clearly defined scope of regulation, outside
> which it does not stray. And within that scope, you need for it to make
> clear rules that make it predictable to suppliers and consumers alike, and
> well-defined processes for making those rules.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of
> *Sam Lanfranco
> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 10:16 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [Info] IPC Letter to ICANN regarding .SUCKS
>
>
>
> Milton,
>
> Unfortunately much of this discussion is slicing into the issues under a
> constrained (in some cases simply binary) understanding of process here.
> You would be correct in what you say if your version of the core issues
> here was correct, but it is not. Put in terribly simple corporate terms,
> ICANN as a corporation is making product decisions, entering into
> contractual agreements, and then going completely silent when issues arise
> around them, or making very non-consultative decisions that sow anger and
> confusion.* Example: ICANN and staff either did or did not issue a
> controversial directive to .doctor earlier this month. The .doctor
> applicant says it did and ICANN remains mute. *This left NCSG to have a
> "maybe it did, maybe it didn't" discussion that lead nowhere. This has
> nothing to do with your cheap shot of calling discussion of these issues an
> appeal to "the heckler's veto". The less cheap shot come back to that is
> that expertise that misses context can be damaging to reasoned dialogue if
> credibility from credentials substitutes for evidence and analysis in
> context.
>
> What is being asked outside the walled city of ICANN is how is it
> performing in terms of corporate social responsibility, and in general that
> has to do with not only its product decisions (which are not solely binary
> here) but how it engages in product related dialogues outside the walls of
> the city. On that later part ICANN remains mute and that will come back to
> haunt it.
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 30/03/2015 9:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> But this idea (ICANN must use its power to suppress anything controversial
> or it will come back to haunt it) is one of the WORST guides to policy we
> can possibly have. Such a view not only would make ICANN responsible for
> the views of anyone to which it hands a domain, it encourages it to
> regulate and suppress any form of expression that offends anyone – which
> means, of course that almost any significant form of expression could be
> targeted. In American legal theory, we call this the heckler’s veto.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sam Lanfranco [mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>]
>
>
>   "These episodes around gTLDs are going to come back to haunt ICANN in
> ways that will not be pleasant.". :-(
>
>
>
>
>
>
>