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

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Dec 18, 2015 7:27 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> .  It overstates the case to say that the "Post-Transition IANA" is
separated from ICANN.  That term should be reserved for the time when ICANN
is no longer the "parent" of PTI.
>
SO: FWIW my +1 to the above statement as it's inline with my understanding
as well. That said, I expect that legal wordings will be in place to ensure
that IANA functions operation does not unilaterally get moved by ICANN from
PTI to another department within ICANN. If that is what Milton is trying to
say then I agree to that intent(even though it's outrageous scenario) and I
believe that should be a fundamental bylaw text.

Regards

> Greg
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2015 3:15 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> SO: +1 to this, so it's a matter of checking if the text in the scope is
indeed out of remit of ICANN's actual role and responsibilities. Nevermind
that this is a repetition of what I had earlier mentioned.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.”
>> >
>> SO: Okay this seem to be becoming wired to me as I no longer understand
the intent here, are you saying that ICANN would seize to be the
IFO(logically) post-transition? If the intent is to somehow recognise the
subsidiary of ICANN (PTI) as the IFO in the fundamental bylaw then I agree
otherwise I think having things embedded in fundamental bylaw is most
appropriate security because these in itself is a literally fundamental
issues of the organisation structure and should be treated as such.
>>
>> Regards
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20151218/813cc24f/attachment.html>