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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
I have studied many other documents used outside ICANN. There are major
adminstrative, legal and implementation différences between " Mission "
which is top level enviroment ( at the top of the PYramid ) and "Scope"
which is area of appléication or responsibility situated at a much lower
level than " Mission ".
I see some descrpencies between the CCWG and ICANN methodology. ICANN tries
to move issues from top of the paramid to elsewhere in the managerial
organigram
I do not agree with that for the time being
Regards
Kavouss

2015-12-16 19:35 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> On Dec 16, 2015 18:31, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:43:35PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:.
> >
> > The difference in the board's text is the replacement of "mission"
> > with "scope", I think.
> >
> SO: I note that the scope in board's wording was preceded with "....in
> servicing it's *mission*, the scope of ICANN...."
>
> With that preceding text in mind, I don't really think the scope has been
> disconnected from the mission. Hence the mission is still very much
> dependent on the scope.
>
> 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.
>
> SO: +1 As someone said, perhaps it's for further clarity and simplicity.
> Nevertheless, so long as "covering body with coverlet" and "covering
> coverlet with body" implies the same thing then one should accommodate it.
>
> >
> 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.
> >
> SO: Based on my explanation above, I am yet to understand how mission
> widening can happen since it's already limited by the scope referenced.
> Unless there is reason to believe that the referenced scope is in itself
> already expanded.
>
> Perhaps there is legal perspective to this than just looking at it
> linguistically/grammatically. Maybe it's something that can be pushed to
> legal team for advice on implications (if any).
>
> >
> 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.)
> >
> SO: Sounds fair enough as it will defeat the purpose in the first place.
>
> Regards
> PS: I have not had time to read the detailed board comment. Only relying
> on the text shared by Becky.
> >
> >
> > A
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Sullivan
> > ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151216/664277e9/attachment-0001.html>