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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sun Nov 1 22:07:40 UTC 2015


Hi,

While I regretted  the loss of the PSO,
Is this transition process really the time to fiix that?

Also, the Protocol community has been clear about preferring their role
as ICANN clients without entanglement.  Is there any evidence that this
is something they are interested.  I thought that Protocols had been
pretty clear about the interest in an arm's length customer relationship
with ICANN.

avri

On 02-Nov-15 06:10, Marilyn Cade wrote:
> 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
> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100
> CC: roelof.meijer at sidn.nl; lyman at interisle.net;
> becky.burr at neustar.biz; iab at iab.org; ssac at icann.org;
> marilynscade at hotmail.com
> To: 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list