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

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 03/11/2015 15:18, Burr, Becky wrote:
> 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.

Becky,

Respectfully, I do not think we should dismiss the IAB/IETF submission
so lightly. Given the enormous amount of effort that has gone into
finding a resolution with GAC over Stress Test 18, for example, to
declare so urgently a lack of consensus seems to treat the protocols
community very badly.

Their proposal seems quite reasonable to me. More importantly, it has
quickly attracted a considerable number of supporting voices in the
CCWG. Also, there has been no opposition to their main contention, that
if we are changing the Mission language, we should at least ensure we do
so so that it is empirically accurate.

True, a small number of people have spoken out saying that they did not
think CCWG should be modify the Mission. But we crossed that bridge a
long time ago. I am sure with a bit more discussion they will come round
to seeing that accurate modification is better than otherwise.

There has been one serious, reasoned objection to the specific proposal,
from Paul Twomey. I had planned to respond, but the reaction swiftly
descended into name-calling and sneering at lawyers (not by Paul, I
hasten to add).

Paul was concerned that replacing "co-ordinates" with "supports" would
diminish the apparent authority of ICANN in the eyes of the court. The
answer to this is that the word "co-ordinates" remains, in both the
sub-section that relates the DNS top level and the subsection that
relates to the root name server system. It also remains in relation to
IP addresses, but only as regards the allocation and assignment at the
top-most level. So in these respects there is no reason to think ICANN's
authority would be diminished in the eyes of the court; in other
respects, I would question whether such apparent authority exists in any
case, or whether it is desirable.

I would prefer that we seek to achieve a consensus in favour of the
IAB/IETF proposal, as amended, which I copy below. As a first step, I
would ask Paul whether the above answer satisfies him, and if not, where
lies the further concern.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.


On 02/11/2015 18:48, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> After the exchange
> with Malcolm, here's what I thought I was agreeing to:
>
>     The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
>     Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at the overall level, certain
>     core Internet registries, and in particular to ensure the stable
>     and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems.
>     Specifically, ICANN:
>
>     1.  Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root
>     zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS").  In this role, ICANN's
>     mission is to coordinate the development and implementation of
>     policies
>
>     • For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably
>     necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability,
>     resilience, security and/or stability;
>
>     • That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based
>     multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and
>     secure operation of the Internet’s unique DNS-based name systems;
>
>     2.  Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name
>     server system;
>
>     3.  Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most
>     level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS")
>     numbers;
>
>     4.  Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core
>     registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
>
> This isn't absolutely perfect in my view, but I think it's pretty good
> in that it expresses plainly and succinctly the specific things ICANN
> does; and the top-most text is already limited.  (I can imagine
> someone getting excited about "ensure the stable and secure operation
> of the Internet's unique identifier systems", but I think that read in
> conjunction with 1-5 is ok.)


-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA