Questions to the Board in ICANN60

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi all,

based on the latest summary from Tapani to pick 2 questions and suggestions
from Kathy to add more background, the questions to be sent the board would
be :

1/  Ombudsman performance and monitoring
how is the Board monitoring the performance of the Office of the Ombudsman
to ensure that harassment complaints filed are being appropriately handled?

2/ Consumer Safeguards

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,

Rafik
2017-10-06 21:37 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>:

> 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 <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/20171008/5b50abfe/attachment.htm>