[CCWG-ACCT] Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello,

Here is the current ICANN mission.

*Section 1. MISSION*

The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's
systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and
secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. In
particular, ICANN:

1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique
identifiers for the Internet, which are

a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");

b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers;
and

c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.


2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server
system.

3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to
these technical functions.


Could you kindly provide what the full newly proposed mission statement
look like. As it's looking like we are about developing a full page mission
statement.

Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 10 Nov 2015 23:58, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:

> Please read all the way through to the bottom for a question and proposal.
>
> Based on our discussion this morning, I believe that the following
> statements reflect the consensus of the CCWG (lack of “full consensus” on
> 1 point noted in text):
>
>
>
> ·     ICANN’s Mission with respect to names is described in the Mission
> Statement as follows:  With respect to NAMES, ICANN’s Mission is to
> coordinate 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: (I)For which uniform or
> coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness,
> interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and
> (ii) 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.
>
> ·     ICANN’s Mission is limited and enumerated.
>
> ·     ICANN’s should act in accordance with, and only as reasonably
> appropriate to achieve its Mission.
>
> ·     Coordinating development, implementation, and enforcement of
> Consensus Policy, as defined by Specification 1 of the New gTLD Registry
> Agreement and Specification 4 of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation
> Agreement, is within ICANN’s Mission.
>
> ·     ICANN should have the authority to enforce agreements with
> contracted parties, subject to established means of community input on
> those agreements and reasonable checks and balances on its ability to
> impose obligations exceeding ICANN’s Mission on such parties.
>
> o   To the extent that registry operators voluntarily assume obligations
> with respect to registry operations as part of the application process,
> ICANN should have the authority to enforce those commitments.
>
>   *NOTE:  There is not “full consensus” on this position*.
>
> o   In general, consistent with ordinary contract concepts, registries and
> registrars should be presumed to have agreed to the terms and conditions of
> any contract with ICANN.
>
> *That said*, there should be some mechanism whereby contracted parties
> can enter into such agreements without waiving their rights to challenge
> specified provisions of such an agreement on the grounds that they exceed
> the scope of ICANN’s Mission.  Any such mechanism would have to provide
> adequate notice, needs to be developed, etc.
>
>
> *We do not appear to have consensus on the following concept*:  *Without
> in any way limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not
> regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the
> content that such services carry or provide.*
>
>
> *Question:  Does the following formulation t*hread the needle between
> those who say that ICANN should not use its contracting authority to
> regulate registrant behavior and those who point out that the Registrar
> Accreditation Agreement, for example, requires registrants to provide
> accurate and up-to-date WHOIS data:  *I**CANN should not use its
> authority to enter into contracts with registries and registrars to impose
> obligations and limitations on registrants with respect to issues that are
> not properly the subject of Consensus Policy.*
>
> *PROPOSAL*:   If so, I propose that the CCWG provide the text above as
> guidance for the final bylaws drafters in interpreting the admonition that "ICANN
> shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate
> to achieve its Mission.”  I believe this would (1) eliminate concerns and
> ambiguity regarding use of the word “regulation,”; (2) reflect consensus on
> the principles; and (3) address the late change/legislative
> history/statutory construction concern raised by Paul R. and others.
>
>
> *J. Beckwith Burr*
> *Neustar, Inc.* / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
> *Office:* +1.202.533.2932  *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151111/27fd6df3/attachment.html>