[CCWG-ACCT] FW: Fwd: FW: ICANN Board Comments on Third CCWG-Accountability Draft Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 16/12/2015 10:27, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Hello Becky,
> 
> We had recommended splitting the text into a simple mission statement
> followed by a scope of responsibility.
> 
> The Mission Statement should be a short and simple statement that
> conveys what ICANN's purpose is and relates to the specific sector of
> activities in which ICANN operates.
> 
> Scope of Responsibilities:  The Board suggests that the purpose of
> this section is to define ICANN's current scope of responsibilities
> within its Mission and in service to its Mission. It should describe
> what ICANN does, not how it does it, and must not change ICANN's
> existing role because that would have consequences for ICANN's
> operations, commitments, and responsibility to the Community

Bruce,

I saw this comment, but was uncertain as to the motivation for it.

Do you simply want a nice, short, simple Mission for "marketing and
communications" purposes? If so, I see no particular difficulty. I can
see that it might be helpful in some contexts.

However, we also say that the Mission is limited, that ICANN may not act
outside the Mission, and that part of the IRP's job is to ajudicate on
whether it has done so (and stop it from doing so), and all this is part
of Fundamental Bylaws.

If we split "Mission" into two parts, "Mission" and "Scope", are you
content that all the corresponding changes are made so that the effect
remains the same. i.e. The Bylaws say that the Scope is limited, that
ICANN may not act outside the Scope, and that part of the IRP's job is
to ajudicate on whether it has done so (and stop it from doing so), and
all this also be part of Fundamental Bylaws?

If we do that, all we've done is a wording change that may be helpful
for communications. If, on the other hand, you want to move text out of
the Mission definition into "Scope", but leave the Mission as the basis
under which a challenge that ICANN has acted ultra vires is considered,
(with the possibility that ICANN may act outside its Scope without
recourse) then you are asking for a substantial change to the Mission
limitation.

I'm uncertain as to which you intend.

Malcolm.


> 
> Suitable bylaws language supports the following two principles can be
> incorporated into the scope of responsibilities: (1) ICANN's entering
> into and enforcement of Registry and Registrar contracts is an
> important component of ICANN's work in coordination and allocation of
> names in the Root Zone of the DNS, and (2) ICANN is not a regulator,
> and does not regulate content through these contracts.

"does not regulate" -> "shall not regulate".

The latter is a prohibiion; the former is merely an assertion.

> Regards, Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA