Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Initial Report -- Compliance section

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I continue to be astonished that exceptions, apart from the special SRSU case, 
cannot be mentioned in any detail, despite significant discussion of them, 
while a very long list of compliance measures, which received no significant 
discussion at all, is included in its entirety, despite logical inconsistencies 
and reliance for its significance on the adoption of particular models. 

If staff is not going to use this list, what is the point of including it?  If 
they are, what is the harm of supplying it to them separately?

It is not correct to suggest that this list of compliance measures has general 
agreement.  It doesn't. 

I do not agree that Avri's suggestion that the list is a minimum ("not limited 
to...").  That is worse than the original wording, which at least didn't 
suggest that there would be an even more onerous and pointless regulatory 
burden than the list implies.   There has been no discussion of the cost of 
these measures, their effectiveness, or the harms they would prevent.  

Antony


On Jul 22, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> hi,
> 
> I agree.  
> 
> Perhaps we can modify:
> 
>> Among the elements of an effective compliance and enforcement program are 
>> the following:
> 
> to say
> 
> The elements of an effective compliance and enforcement program that may be 
> considered as discussion proceed include, but are not limited to, the 
> following:
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 22 Jul 2010, at 10:31, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Compliance -- serious compliance -- is the one thing that everyone on the WG
>> agrees with in some form or another.  Supplying Readers with a list of the
>> types of things that we are talking about is important in this Interim
>> Draft.  I don't think any of us actually believe that ICANN staff will take
>> this list and write it into the final Applicant Guidebook, so, for my part,
>> I think we should go with it and -- like all of this report -- tighten up
>> those things that need it when we get to our Final Report.
>> 
>> In short, leave the compliance piece as is for now.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> Ronald N. Andruff
>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:53 AM
>> To: Antony Van Couvering; briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx Cute
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Initial Report -- Release-candidate draft is
>> out on the wiki
>> 
>> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> looks like we've got a few ways to go here...
>> 
>> -- the drafting-group could develop a replacement that works better for all
>> 
>> -- the offending list could get chopped off the draft
>> 
>> -- we could amplify the "this is a draft" header to make it clear that this
>> one is pretty far from agreement
>> 
>> what say you drafting-group folks.  how about one more try at getting this
>> one a bit closer to agreement.
>> 
>> thanks,
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 21, 2010, at 9:58 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I see that the kitchen sink full of specific compliance measures, which
>> were never discussed, much less agreed to, and of which many only make sense
>> in certain models, are back in the compliance draft.   They certainly cannot
>> be qualified as principles that I agree with -- and others have seconded
>> this.  
>>> 
>>> The compliance draft states:  "Where there seems to be agreement is in the
>> notion that an effect Compliance function is needed -- to increase
>> confidence that harmful behavior will be quickly identified and stopped, and
>> to provide better information upon which to base policy in the future."  I
>> with agree to this, but in a general sense only.  This sentence, followed by
>> the kitchen sink list, suggest that there "seems to be agreement" on the
>> kitchen sink.   There isn't.  That is a mischaracterization. 
>>> 
>>> The drafter of this list first ignored my timely comment, which was
>> seconded by Milton Mueller, and subsequently suggested that my amendments,
>> which I provided in a red-lined Word doc, were too late and without support.
>> Neither of these implications are true, and I strongly object to my entirely
>> reasonable points being ignored.
>>> 
>>> Apart from the fact that many of these items don't make any logical sense
>> from the perspective of ICANN enforcement, a drafter for a group has an
>> obligation to be neutral and listen to others, air objections, and try to
>> find consensus.   This happened in the exceptions drafting group, where my
>> suggestions were overruled by the others.  That was fair, and I acceded to
>> their correct observations that my suggestions did not have consensus either
>> in the wider group or within our drafting subgroup.  
>>> 
>>> In the compliance group, however, things have proceeded rather
>> differently.  Even when I proposed alternate language, and others agreed
>> with me, we were ignored.  
>>> 
>>> If the itemized list of compliance measures stay in there, I will have to
>> forcefully dissent.  These items are a wish-list of the drafter, and not the
>> result of group input.  
>>> 
>>> Antony
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> the latest (and hopefully final) version of the Initial Report is out on
>> the wiki.  here's the link;
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?initial_report_snapshots
>>>> 
>>>> i think we've achieved reasonable balance -- a report that everybody
>> dislikes about equally.  :-)
>>>> 
>>>> mikey
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>>> phone      651-647-6109  
>>>> fax                866-280-2356  
>>>> web        http://www.haven2.com
>>>> handle     OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
>> Google, etc.)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone        651-647-6109  
>> fax                  866-280-2356  
>> web  http://www.haven2.com
>> handle       OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
>> etc.)
>> 
>> 
> 
>