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

Malcolm Hutty malcolm at linx.net
Fri Dec 18 11:32:35 UTC 2015



On 18/12/2015 10:48, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Hello Kavouss,
> 
>>> Never ever at any organisation the " Mission 2 is replaced by"
>>> Scope of responsibility" they are entirely  two different things
> 
> The mission is not being replaced by a Scope of Responsibility.
> 
> The Board is actually using a standard definition of mission.
> 
> From:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_statement
> 
> “A mission statement is a statement which is used as a way of
> communicating the purpose of the organization. Although most of the
> time it will remain the same for a long period of time, it is not
> uncommon for organizations to update their mission statement and
> generally happens when an organization evolves. Mission statements
> are normally short and simple statements which outline what the
> organization's purpose is and are related to the specific sector an
> organization operates in.”
> 
> The CCWG draft mission does not meet that standard.

No. Not that there's any particular reason why it should be necessary to
meet the Wikipedia description for a typical mission statement; ICANN is
quite an atypical corporation.

I do agree that it does look unusual though. The way we are using the
Mission, however, reads to me more like the "Objects" clause for a
Memorandum of Association of a corporation intended to have a limited
purpose (such as a certain non-profits, and unlike a normal commercial
for-profit corporation). I would't be greatly surprised if when this
goes to lawyers they advise that this whole section should be moved
there, instead of being in the Bylaws.

> The Scope of Responsibilities are still fundamental bylaws that
> cannot be changed without community approval.
> 
> We have no objection to appropriate language in our bylaws that set
> out the rules of the organization.  A mission though should be short
> and simple.

We are using the "Mission" as a governance tool. I can see why you might
wish to use the term "Mission" as part of a communications tool, and
create another term, such as "Scope of Responsibilities" to perform the
governance function. So long as the governance effect is the same, I'm
OK with that.

But the text included in the "Scope" must have exactly the same weight
and effect as if it were included in the "Mission"; otherwise you could
argue that there was a an inconsistency or mismatch between the Mission
and Scope, and that the Mission must take precedence; this must be made
impossible.


-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA




More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list