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

[Mueller, Milton L]

No.  We have no problem with having the Scope of Responsibilities be fundamental bylaws,

MM: As noted in my previous message, I do have a problem if the scope includes non-core, nonexclusive things that ICANN does.

and that obviously means we expect the Scope of Responsibilities to be fairly stable.  Changes to the Scope of Responsibilities should require careful deliberation and considered action by the community as well as the Board.  The Mission Statement should be even more stable and hardly ever require amendment.

MM: For ICANN to include its role as IFO as a fundamental bylaw is a backdoor way of resisting and denying one of the most critical reforms of the IANA  transition, namely the legal and structural separation of IFO from ICANN and the principle of separability. Sorry, Steve, that isn't going to happen. Besides, to wrest IANA away from ICANN requires a massively complex process that certainly already qualifies as "careful deliberation and considered action."


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151218/106b978c/attachment.html>