[CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Dr Eberhard W Lisse
epilisse at gmail.com
Sun Nov 1 21:38:13 UTC 2015
But,
do they want that?
el
On 2015-11-01 23:24 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> From three operational communities, two are currently well represented
> in the ICANN
>
> Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO,
>
> Numbers by ASO
>
> Protocol and technical parameters by No one,
>
> It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to
> the process but would it be possible to seek from them whether in their
> view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by them
> in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission
> .Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple
>
> For your kind consideration
>
> Kavouss
>
>
> 2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com
> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>:
>
> I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance
> was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the
> Board's credibility.
>
> The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew
> from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of
> elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere
> from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
>
> When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned,
> and experienced from the technical community...
>
> we have lost that particular role...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on
> Mission Statement
> From: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100
> CC: roelof.meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>;
> lyman at interisle.net <mailto:lyman at interisle.net>;
> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>; iab at iab.org
> <mailto:iab at iab.org>; ssac at icann.org <mailto:ssac at icann.org>;
> marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
>
> +1.
>
> I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO.
>
> (At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was
> interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT
> standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not
> correct, nor appropriate.)
>
> There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and
> assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with
> accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
>
> CW
>
> On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com
> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language.
> I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board
> removed the elected representative from the technical community
> with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including
> IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision
> that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus
> acceptable representatives from the technical community.
>
> Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical
> community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have
> no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of
> accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter
> from this discussion.
>
> And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very
> difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
>
> As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does
> not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there
> is no need that you agree with my views
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
> > From: Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>
> > To: lyman at interisle.net
> <mailto:lyman at interisle.net>; Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000
> > CC: IAB at Iab.org <mailto:IAB at Iab.org>; ssac at icann.org
> <mailto:ssac at icann.org>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments
> on Mission Statement
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA
> Stewardship Transition
> > nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability.
> > We should not deal with this.
> > Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a
> fundamental bylaw and
> > thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community
> feels that
> > something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Roelof
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 31-10-15 09:56,
> "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on
> > behalf of Lyman Chapin"
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> > on behalf of lyman at interisle.net <mailto:lyman at interisle.net>>
> wrote:
> >
> > >Becky and CCWG members -
> > >
> > >Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw -
> and therefore
> > >by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern
> expressed by
> > >the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a
> lot more
> > >important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of
> preferring
> > >different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's
> current
> > >mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple
> matter of fact,
> > >ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global
> Internet¹s
> > >system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical
> standard, the
> > >alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission
> statement) proposed
> > >by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it
> seems obvious
> > >that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one
> that stands
> > >in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the
> IAB to
> > >develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we
> recommend
> > >that it do so.
> > >
> > >- Lyman and Julie
> > >
> > >On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
> > >
> > >> CCWG Members
> > >>
> > >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission
> Statement,
> > >>which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the
> allocation
> > >>and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including
> Protocol port
> > >>and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early
> comments
> > >>they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to
> ³support.² WP2
> > >>discussed this and declined to modify the existing language
> in the
> > >>Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server
> > >>community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own
> > >>description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each
> (i.e.,
> > >>names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
> > >>
> > >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB
> remains
> > >>very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to
> Andrew (on
> > >>behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the
> chapeau) is
> > >>misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been
> false at
> > >>least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting
> Organization] and
> > >>arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB,
> ³ICANN does
> > >>not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's
> systems of
> > >>unique identifiers.²
> > >>
> > >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and
> Steve
> > >>Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s
> description of
> > >>its role in this area more precisely:
> > >>
> > >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm
> chair of the
> > >>Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently
> has text
> > >>that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall
> level, the
> > >>global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote.
> That's not
> > >>precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the
> protocol
> > >>supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm
> wondering whether
> > >>the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since
> it's open
> > >>anyway in the CCWG process?
> > >>
> > >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here.
> Andrew, thank
> > >>you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable
> disparity between
> > >>some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some
> of the
> > >>words that our close friends use to describe us. We have --
> and we've --
> > >>some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good
> news -- I
> > >>think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last
> relatively short
> > >>period of time, we have built a much stronger technical
> team, step one.
> > >>And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected
> to the
> > >>communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to
> have been.
> > >>But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the
> scenes things
> > >>of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going
> forward, we're
> > >>going to try to align our words in a more careful way.
> There's always a
> > >>lot of equities about how many words you use to describe
> yourself which,
> > >>you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment
> of the
> > >>nuances is well in order.
> > >>
> > >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses
> the concerns
> > >>of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of
> (1) the
> > >>Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal;
> and (3) the
> > >>IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear
> to be more
> > >>dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect
> moving the
> > >>language around. The substantive changes include:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> IAB Proposal
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level,
> the global
> > >>Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core
> Internet
> > >>registries²
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain
> Names
> > >>(forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names
> in the root
> > >>zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of
> protocol port and
> > >>parameter numbers²
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to
> publish core
> > >>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached.
> Given the
> > >>strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was
> important to
> > >>raise this issue for discussion.
> > >>
> > >> Becky
> > >>
> > >> J. Beckwith Burr
> > >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> > >>
> > >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30
> > >>October.pdf>_______________________________________________
> > >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4218 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151101/c4298a1b/smime.p7s>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list