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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 00:14:33 UTC 2015


I can understand the IAB's concerns, viewed from the perspective of those
who promulgate protocols.

However, I have significant concerns, on several levels, about the timing
and substance of the proposals, and the CCWG's remit and capacity to deal
with this request at this time.

This is no simple request.  Depending on how it is handled, it could be
seen to significantly change (whether expanding or contracting) ICANN's
mission.

Also, we are not beginning at the beginning.  The "Mission" in the Bylaws
cannot be considered without considering an even more foundational
document, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation -- the document which creates
(in a legal sense) ICANN.  The Bylaws are a subsidiary document, and need
to be consistent with the Articles.  The Bylaws may be "laws," but the
Articles are the "Constitution."

The relevant section of the Articles (Section 3) reads:

the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the
charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and
promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the
Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical
parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet;
(ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the
Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing
functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("
DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the
circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root
system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root
server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in
furtherance of items (i) through (iv).

We (and our counsel and ICANN's counsel) would need to consider if the
Articles accurately reflect ICANN's mission and if they don't, how they
should be changed.  We would all need to consider how any proposed change
in the Bylaws would need to be reflected by changing the Articles (and vice
versa).  In other words, we shouldn't even be talking about the Bylaws
until we have finished talking about the Articles.

Turning to the proposal at hand:

The most critical change proposed by the IAB is to replace the base
definition of ICANN's mission early in the chapeau text.  This is the most
fundamental statement of ICANN's mission in these Bylaws; everything else
is just clarification.  Where it now says that ICANN's mission is to
"coordinate,
at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers,"
the IAB's proposal would change this to state that ICANN's mission is
to "support,
at the overall level, core Internet registries."  This is a radical shift.
Maybe unintentionally so, but radical nonetheless.  Changing ICANN's focus
from "coordinating" the Internet's "unique identifiers" to "supporting"
core Internet "registries" would be a seismic shift.  Specifically this
looks like a great diminishment of ICANN's responsibility (from
"coordinating" to "supporting") and scope (from "unique identifiers" to
"core Internet registries").

At one level, this is a "legal drafting" assignment.  But legal drafting is
a later stage in any process.  What has to come first is a definition of
what it is we are trying to say -- and what it is we are trying to change.
Once we can answer that question accurately, the lawyers can draft language
to make sure that our intentions are accurately carried out and to avoid
any unintended consequences or interpretations.

At this point in our process, I'm downright terrified at embarking on a
revision of ICANN's fundamental mission.  This should not be done in a rush
-- every bit of what ICANN can do (and can't do) flows from here.  Any such
change needs to be carefully and deeply considered.

Finally, with regard to the transition, I have to say that this is a "nice
to have" (maybe) but not a "need to have."  I would resist latching onto
the transition and accountability process, and our working group, to
consider and implement this change.  This may seem like the "easiest"
opportunity to get this change looked at, but that doesn't make it right.

Greg

On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am attending the IETF now, and I must say picked up no clue that they
> are even thinking about this.  Lots of people come up to me and talk
> about ICANN and what we are up to.  PSO was on no ones lips.
>
> What I do pick up is that they are hoping we make an end of it in real
> time and not keep adding issues to be dealt with before things can move
> on.  the ones that knew of the Dublin compromises where rather pleased
> and worried about the impression coming out of CCWG that some of those
> might be unraveling with people arguing for their old positions.
>
> I will keep listening for the rest of the week and if hear anyone
> worrying about a resurgence of the PSO, will be sure to let the list know.
>
> Just saying.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 02-Nov-15 06:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151101/bbe9218c/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list