[CCWG-ACCT] [ajs at anvilwalrusden.com: Re: [IAB] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement]

[Andrew Sullivan]

One of two to Malcolm Hutty.

A

----- Forwarded message from Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> -----

Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:56:38 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net>
Cc: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, "IAB at Iab.org" <IAB at Iab.org>,
	Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [IAB] [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission
	Statement
List-Id: "Internet Architecture Board \(IAB\)" <iab.iab.org>

Hi Malcolm,

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.

You will note that the change to "core Internet registries" does _not_
say "all core Internet registries".  This is on purpose.
ICANN-as-IANA does not, in fact, today operate all the core Internet
registries, and does not operate or even co-ordinate the global
Internet's system of unique identifiers either.  For instance, IANA
does not operate the enum registry; it's operated by RIPE.  The time
zone database was handled on purpose separately from the normal IANA
registry approach, too, and the IAB's role is different with respect
to that database than with the rest of the IANA registries.  As a less
subtle example, ICANN as IANA certainly does not operate the
twitter.com or gmail.com zones; but they also contain important unique
identifiers on the Internet.

The IAB thought that limiting the role to (some) Internet registries
more accurately captured ICANN's role.  We thought "the global
Internet's system of unique identifiers" suggested a more direct role
in operations than ICANN necessarily has.  It happens to operate one
of the names in the root NS set, for instance, but it's not clear
that's a core part of ICANN's mission and anyway it's only one of 12
independent operators.

Similarly, ICANN has no role at all in either operation or zone policy
at levels lower in the DNS tree.  For instance, ICANN policy wisely
restricts labels in the root zone to letters, digits, and hyphen (IDNs
use IDNA to make this happen, which is where the xn--[something]
labels come from).  Lower in the DNS tree, there are lots of other
conventions used.  Those conventions are not useful in the root
because they don't work for general cases, but they are useful in
other conditions and entirely appropriate in those other parts of the
tree.  Such rules are not developed, co-ordinated, imposed, managed,
or directly affected by ICANN, but they're an important part of the
global Internet's system of unique identifiers.

ICANN has nothing whatsoever to do with the local part of email
addresses (in left to right scripts, the part to the left of the @
sign, such as ajs in ajs at anvilwalrusden.com), but email addresses are
plainly part of the Internet's system of unique identifiers.  There
are more examples, but this is probably enough to illustrate.

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.

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.  We're just trying
to make the language itself precise, so that ICANN's mission
accurately reflects what it does (and doesn't include things that, I
think everyone agrees, ICANN shouldn't and doesn't want to do).

Best regards,

A (speaking for myself)

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com