[CCWG-ACCT] Our timetable -- some personal observations

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Wed Dec 16 17:30:41 UTC 2015


Hi,

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:43:35PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
> Andrew - are the protocol and numbers communities ok with the Board
> proposed language to the effect that ICANN:
> 
> ³Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries
> needed for the functioning of the Internet.  In this role, with respect to
> protocol ports and parameters, ICANN¹s scope is to provide registration
> services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by
> Internet protocol development organizations.²

This is an excellent question.  Unfortunately, I don't think it's one
I can answer at the moment.

The IAB has been evaluating the text the CCWG proposed.  (Unless I've
miscounted the responses, actually, I'm about to submit the IAB's
response to surveymonkey.)  I believe the IAB is supportive of the
text the CCWG proposed.

The difference in the board's text is the replacement of "mission"
with "scope", I think.  I really don't get why it's important to the
board, and I think I'd need to think some about whether there are any
implications.  What I like (and I think what the IAB likes) about the
CCWG text is how limited it makes the mission.  (I've argued all along
that the explicit additional limitations people have wanted are
unnecessary, as you know.)  I cannot tell whether the board's language
is an attempt to widen the mission.  If it is, then it's anyone's
guess whether the IAB would support it.  (I guess "no", to be honest,
but it's just a guess.)

I'll try to find out what the IAB thinks, however.  Keep in mind that
we just had our last meeting of the year, so responses from IAB
members may be slower now.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list