[CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
James Gannon
james at cyberinvasion.net
Mon Nov 2 14:43:03 UTC 2015
Agreed.
-jg
On 02/11/2015, 2:41 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Burr, Becky" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
>I’d like to try to narrow the issues in play here, in the hopes of
>reaching closure. Setting aside the proposed change to the chapeau (from
>coordinate to support) is there consensus that the following accurately
>describes ICANN’s role vis a vis port and parameter numbers?
>
>4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core
>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role,
>with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers, ICANN’s Mission is to
>[to be provided by the IETF].
>
>
>
>
>J. Beckwith Burr
>Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>
>
>
>
>
>On 11/2/15, 12:23 AM, "Jonne Soininen" <jonne.soininen at icann.org> wrote:
>
>>Hello everybody,
>>
>>as the IETF liaison to the ICANN board, I can assure you that neither the
>>IETF nor the IAB are proposing to bring PSO back. The relationship is
>>good as it is today.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Jonne.
>>
>>On 02 Nov 2015, at 00:13, 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai
>>>>>>>lman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtI
>>>>>>>ETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4l
>>>>>>>ZVqLB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3Rr
>>>>>>>zhrKIGakGJ9BM&e=
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
>>>>>>man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET
>>>>>>eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVq
>>>>>>LB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrK
>>>>>>IGakGJ9BM&e=
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail
>>>>>>man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET
>>>>>>eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVq
>>>>>>LB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrK
>>>>>>IGakGJ9BM&e=
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>>>an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>>>>ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7
>>>>>NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGak
>>>>>GJ9BM&e=
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>>>an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>>>>ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7
>>>>>NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGak
>>>>>GJ9BM&e=
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm
>>>>>an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD
>>>>>ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7
>>>>>NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGak
>>>>>GJ9BM&e=
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>>
>>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma
>>>>n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL
>>>>C_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMk
>>>>IMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGakGJ9B
>>>>M&e=
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi
>>>rus&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO
>>>P8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=1p1_-lSUXgrUOE
>>>bKYz5KGB8Ei8VN_jLJ7zc3lFdVj0w&e=
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>>
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman
>>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_
>>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMkIME
>>>z4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGakGJ9BM&e=
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_
>>listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU
>>Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMkIMEz4p
>>Nhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGakGJ9BM&e=
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list