Questions to the Board in ICANN60

[Kathy Kleiman]

Milton, We asked that umbrella  question fairly recently, in Copenhagen, 
I think, about whether ICANN would be expanding its work outside its 
mission in response to the various pressures, and Goran responded with 
the one word answer "no."

That's why this time, your statement offers a good umbrella, but I would 
include some specific subparts (it also lets ICANN Staff know they 
should be in the room to help address the question.) Some ideas that 
come to mind:

* * * *

Could we make this question a more general one about the various pressures for ICANN to expand its mission?

1) There is pressure on ICANN and ICANN participants to expand trademark 
law. In fact, within ICANN we negotiate consensus policies that balance 
trademark protections with free expression and fair use protections, 
devoting considerable amounts of volunteer efforts, and then registries 
adopt rejected consensus policies as private policies. Why have 
consensus policies at all then? Is the PDP process still relevant?

2) There is pressure on ICANN and ICANN participants to expand 
compliance to "abuse" in an array of content areas. What concerns does 
the Board have, and NCSG, about the Consumer Safeguard Directors 
question about "whether ICANN should collaborate with other stakeholders 
regarding abuse." [Recent Consumer Safeguards webinar/meeting] Would 
that collaboration be within the scope and mission of ICANN or outside 
of it?  How actively do already-overworked volunteers have to work to 
request that ICANN stay within its mission?

3) There is pressure on ICANN to support anything that registries have 
put into their public interest commitments -- whether it is within the 
scope and mission of ICANN or not. For example, a number of registries 
put provisions into their Public Interest Commitments that they will 
adopt future anti-abuse policies and then consider them part of the PIC. 
Should that anti-abuse policy not be fair, balanced, or within the scope 
of ICANN's mission, e.g., (no Martians are allowed to register domain 
names), what role will Compliance Staff and Consumer Safeguards Director 
play in enforcement -- or non-enforcement -- of these provisions?

Best and enjoy Abu Dhabi, Kathy

On 2017-10-05 17:07, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> Could we make this question a more general one about the various pressures for ICANN to expand its mission?
>>
>> Dr. Milton Mueller
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
>>> Of Tapani Tarvainen
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 2:01 AM
>>> To:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: Questions to the Board in ICANN60
>>>
>>> Kathy,
>>>
>>> Could you open your question up a bit? I think many people could use some
>>> background as well as some thoughts about what we'd hope to get from the
>>> board.
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Oct 05 08:39, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> (3) Why should the Consumer Safeguards Director be asking the
>>>>> Community what he should be doing
>>>>>
>>>>> This is another good question, though one that probably would not
>>>>> fly if offered to the council (might be worth a shot though).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> trying to understand the question, are we asking the new director or
>>>> the board position on the topic?
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171006/74414d23/attachment.htm>