[NCUC-DISCUSS] HR activists take note: A review of the draft bylaws on the mission, core values and commitments

[DeeDee Halleck]

Thank you, Milton, for your careful reading and practical suggestions.
DeeDee

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> 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
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>


-- 
http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160404/ace6c322/attachment-0002.html>