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.". :-( > > > > > > >