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

[Burr, Becky]

I don’t think I am following you Malcolm.  I believe we agreed this
morning that eliminating the chapeau would solve the coordinate/support
problem.  Now it seems that may leave a hole in the protocol description.
I merely asked Andrew to suggest a fix to the protocol section that does
not reintroduce the support/coordinate tension.

J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer





On 11/3/15, 11:22 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

>
>
>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 |
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net
>_&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W
>DDkMr4k&m=emDQPSw4PBjV4Fx_fXUYaJ1WtoV7SpvcSXc4T1U0J3o&s=SuT6TL4kkjNSEVCdcA
>iTj36FGczFKnXFB9TUYV_2y0g&e=
>
>                 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
>
>