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

[Burr, Becky]

Andrew - I didn¹t see this before I sent out the last note.  If you want
to suggest text for the ³collaborates with² language to clarify, please
do.  I do not see how we can reach consensus on replacing ³coordinate²
with ³support² in the chapeau, which is why I suggested addressing the
problem by eliminating it.

J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer





On 11/2/15, 10:02 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:41:06PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
>> I¹d 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 ICANN¹s 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, ICANN¹s 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