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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Becky
Yes , at the recent ICG meeting they raised the concerns and I  informed  the meeting that if they write to CCWG we will reconsider the matter and rake a decision , as appropriate
Kavouss  

Sent from my iPhone

> On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:04, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> wrote:
> 
> CCWG Members –
>  
> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers.  As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.”  WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
>  
> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement.  According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does  not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.”
> 
> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely:
> 
>>> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
>>>  
>>> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order. 
> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members.  I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal.  I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are.  Most of the changes reflect moving the language around.  The substantive changes include:
>  
> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
> IAB Proposal
> ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”
> ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”
> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”)
> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”)
> ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers”
> ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.”
> 
> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached.  Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
> 
> Becky
> 
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 
> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151030/b5c98045/attachment.html>