[CCWG-ACCT] The Board's take on the Mission Statement

[Malcolm Hutty]

> On 17 Dec 2015, at 20:48, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Which is why it is part of the current scop of responsibilities that can change over time, and not part of the mission statement that should be much more stable.
>  

Is this meant as confirmation that the things the Board wants to designate as "Scope of Responsibilities" rather than "Mission" it would not want to have the status of "Fundamental Bylaws"?



> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>  
>  
> From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 7:35 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: The Board's take on the Mission Statement
>  
>  
>  
> The addition of “allocation and assignment of names” was intended to capture the role of putting names in the root zone including new gTLDs and IDN-ccTLDs.”
>  
> I accept that this could be considered as part of “implementation of policies” = but it was trying to be more specific.
>  
> MM: But in fact, that is no longer an essential or exclusive part of ICANN’s mission. Names are put into the root zone by the IANA functions operator. ICANN may or may not be the IANA functions operator for names in the future. Many of the changes in the mission statement called for by the IAB and ISOC were predicated on the fact that ICANN is not presumed to be the IFO.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151217/f183b872/attachment.html>