Thank you, Milton, for your careful reading and practical suggestions. DeeDee On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > [log in to unmask] > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org