[CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

Chartier, Mike S mike.s.chartier at intel.com
Wed Nov 4 13:12:19 UTC 2015


Is there a reason why we need "Internet protocol development organizations, such as" ?

Why can't it just say:

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 ports and parameters, ICANN's Mission is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by the Internet Engineering Task Force.


-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 11:39 PM
To: Burr, Becky
Cc: iab at iab.org; Accountability Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 03:13:49PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:

> I’ve attached a revised deck trying to lay out our conclusions from 
> last night.

Thanks for this work.

As a tiny friendly amendment, I'd suggest adjusting "…unique identifier systems as described …" to "…unique identifier systems in the ways described …".  This change will avoid any question of whether ICANN has responsibility for all unique identifier systems (it plainly doesn't -- email addresses, twitter handles, and ethernet MAC addresses are all such systems, none of which are ICANN's problem).
I'm not super worked up about this, but I suggest it because it protects ICANN from people who want to find problems for ICANN to solve.

For item 4, I think this would work pretty well:

    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 ports and parameters, ICANN's
    Mission is to provide registration services and open access for
    registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol
    development organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task
    Force.

This allows for co-ordination not strictly through the MoU (as in the TZ database), and highlights the collaboration.  Note that it's "protocol ports and parameters" -- no "numbers", since not all the registries are numeric.

So, putting that all together, I think this is what we'd get:

    The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
    Numbers ("ICANN") is to ensure the stable and secure operation of
    the Internet's unique identifier systems in the ways described
    below.  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 names systems.

    2.  Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name
    server system. In this role, ICANN’s Mission is to [to be provided
    by root server operators].

    3.  Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most
    level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS")
    numbers. ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN
    and RIRs.

    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 ports and parameters, ICANN's
    Mission is to provide registration services and open access for
    registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol
    development organizations, such as the Internet Engineering Task
    Force.

I'm pretty confident this would find support among the IAB.  I've done some quick consultation and people seem to be reasonably comfortable.
Again, I haven't done a formal consensus call, and doing so would take some time.  I will if that will make people comfortable, but it'll probably be more useful if it happens after the text is pretty well completely settled.

I think this text achieves our collective goal of an accurate, easily-understood mission statement that gives due weight to ICANN's important role without overstating it or exposing ICANN to the dangers a too-broad mission would entail.  I appreciate so much the spirit of collaboration and co-operation here.  I think it's just another sign that, when it comes to getting this sort of thing done, there really is nothing that beats open processes and collaboration among multiple stakeholders.  Thanks, and special thanks to Becky who I know has been on the pointy end of much of this discussion.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list