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

[Andrew Sullivan]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:41:06PM +0000, Burr, Becky 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].

If we drop the last bit as per your other note, we get

    Collaborates with othr bodies as appropriate to publish core
    registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.

So now, unless we include the chapeau text, I don't know whether we
can have consensus on whether that captures ICANN's role with respect
to protocol parameters.  This item can only be understood by
evaluating the term, "as appropriate", and that will always end up
having to be determined by evaluating the text in context.

If the context is the chapeau in the bylaws today, then the context
for "appropriate" would be a claim about ICANN's responsibilities that
are, in my view and (as far as I can tell) the view of many others,
much larger than its actual responsibilities

That is the whole point of the IAB's position on this.  We've been
pointing this same issue out since the public comment on the first
draft (and, in fact, before then, but that's less relevant to this
group).

We've lived with the over-broad mission for some time, but the reason
the IAB was so concerned about this from our first public comment
submission is because the CCWG proposes to make the mission super
important.  It's the basis for IRP and has to undergird all the IRP
decisions.  Given that there'll be no external contract to constrain
ICANN (as the NTIA does now), the mission needs to reflect,
accurately, the reality of what ICANN ought to be doing.  The CCWG is
creating (appropriately, in my view and in the view the IAB has
expressed) mechanisms by which the community will hold the ICANN Board
to account; but for that reason, the bylaws must be appropriate to the
Board's and ICANN's responsibilities, or else the community will have
good reason to ask why ICANN and its Board aren't doing what the
bylaws say.  If the mission is over-broad, that will create a problem.
And the very same accountability mechanisms will make this particular
bylaw extremely difficult to change later in order to make it smaller,
because those who benefit from the more expansive position will
need to persuade only a minitory to oppose the change.

There should be no surprise that this is an important issue.  We
pointed it out repeatedly, and even a casual analysis illustrates the
danger in leaving the mission too broad given that the mission is
about to become a more important part of the bylaws.  The CCWG is
rewriting the mission anyway -- that's why we commented -- and it
seems to me that if you're going to rewrite the mission it would be a
good idea to make it conform to reality.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com