[CCWG-ACCT] [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 01/11/2015 01:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:52:36PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> 
>> The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is
>> to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely
>> reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
> 
> That's the intent, yes.
> 
>> On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet’s
>> system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a
>> broadening of scope.
>>
>> I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries"
>> is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text
>> intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
> 
> The change was actually intended to _limit_ scope, rather than
> broaden.  Let me try to explain what we were thinking.

Andrew,

Thank you for this helpful clarification, and your extended reasoning.
It is very welcome to have confirmed that, as I expected, we share the
same aim, and are only discussing what might be the best wording to
achieve it.

If the intention is to limit scope, it seems odd to move from a scope
that is bounded, if a little imprecisely ("the Internet's system of
globally unique identifiers"), to one which is wholly unbounded "core
Internet registries", especially since you acknowledge existing examples
of "core Internet registries" that are outside ICANN's purview.

The language you proffer does state more clearly what ICANN's role is in
respect of DNS, IP addresses and Internet protocols. This is very
helpful and I cheerfully support those elements of your text. However it
seems the very opposite of limiting scope to introduce a suggestion that
there might be other Internet registries within ICANN's Mission while
saying nothing to about what its role might be for them, nor any
guidance to help identify which registries would be within and which
without.


> It's our view that the language about "global Internet's system of
> unique identifiers" is part of the reason many people continue to
> think (and write news stories to the effect) that ICANN is somehow in
> control of the Internet.  If the mission were clearer about just how
> limited (while still crucial) the IANA remit were, perhaps we would
> not be facing overblown worries about "giving the Internet away" and
> so on -- worries that have made the IANA transition itself more
> controversial than it ought to be.

Fixing that would indeed be helpful, but by moving to an unbounded list
of "core Internet registries" I think you may make the same problem even
worse.

As things are, at least you can explain that if it's not something
that's globally unique then it's unquestionably out of ICANN's sphere
(which deals with e-mail localparts, for example). With your text, the
limiting factor is only what is "core", for which there is no
explanation. Worse, the boundary of ICANN's responsiblity isn't set
around the edges of "core", but somewhere unknown within that set: in
your own claim, there are some things that qualify as "core" that still
are not currently and should not be considered ICANN's responsibility
(you give the example of enum).

This lack of guidance as to the extent of ICANN's proper scope is a
recipe for much confusion and disagreement, even amongst members of the
technical community of that share a community culture and similar
expectations. Should this text ever be the subject of formal
adjudication, by a court for example, or by the arbitrators of the
Independent Review Panel, I think a great deal of time and cost could be
incurred investigating what "core" means and whether a particular new
thing, that ICANN has just started doing, falls within this Mission or not.

Even more worryingly, with such an unbounded list, a review panel might
take the view that this text is not intended to limit ICANN's scope at
all: for want of any persuasive alternative explanation, it might decide
that a "core Internet registry" is any registry that ICANN supports, by
definition, and that ICANN was authorised to do anything it wishes to
"support" such registries, limited only by the specific limits
enumerated elsewhere in the text. If that outcome came about it would
never be possible to say that some new activity ICANN had undertaken lay
outside its Mission; the mere fact that ICANN had undertaken it would
justify doing so.
That would denude ICANN of any argument for declining to undertake any
activity that others would like to thrust upon it: it could never say
"that's not our job", because as soon as it started the activity, it
would become part of the mission.

I've set this out at length not because I'm trying to be argumentative,
but because I think this is a serious problem in your wording that it is
really important to fix and, since we agree in our aims, I would like to
persuade you to the same conclusion.

> I hope this makes plainer at least what our thinking is.  The IAB is
> not trying to be firm about the precise way things are stated, and I
> am more than happy to try to find better language.  


Perhaps the root cause of the problem here is how your text interacts
with the existing wording "In particular", which designates what follows
as a non-exhaustive list.

Let me suggest a solution: if instead of saying

    The Mission of The Internet
    Corporation for Assigned Names and
    Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at
    the overall level, core Internet
    registries, and in particular to ensure
    the stable and secure operation of the
    Internet's unique identifier systems. In
    particular, ICANN:
    [details in points 1,2,3,4]


we add the word "certain" before "core Internet registries" (to clarify
that it's not all of them) and replace "in particular" with
"specifically" (or some other word designating an exhaustive list), as
follows:

    The Mission of The Internet
    Corporation for Assigned Names and
    Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at
    the overall level, certain core Internet
    registries, and in particular to ensure
    the stable and secure operation of the
    Internet's unique identifier systems.
    Specifically, ICANN:
    [details in points 1,2,3,4 - all as you propose]

I think this would better achieve the aim you describe, and would
satisfy me entirely. Does this work for you?

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

-- 
            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