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

Paul Twomey paul.twomey at argopacific.com
Sat Oct 31 20:32:06 UTC 2015


Becky

I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when 
viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.

But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact 
on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but 
particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing 
international "politics of technology" processes.   When I look at the 
proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to 
"support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising 
uncertainty.   As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one 
example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property 
which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability 
for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN 
(including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in 
this area has been important.

It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the 
politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that 
they can go looking for another primary head of power.

I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I 
do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid 
survive.

I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of 
the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission 
Statement as it now stands.

Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?

Paul

Paul Twomey

On 10/31/15 11:52 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> Becky,
>
> Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
>
> I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern
> about one aspect of the implementation.
>
> The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is
> to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely
> reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
>
> Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to "“coordinate, at the
> overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”, and
> then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things
> regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters.
>
> The proposed text states that ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the
> overall level, core Internet registries”.
>
> The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a
> good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters
> in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest
> responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN
> does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters;
> that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of
> those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more
> accurately reflects this.
>
> On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet’s
> system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a
> broadening of scope.
>
> I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries"
> is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text
> intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
>
> We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the
> creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want
> those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
>
> Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all
> obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for
> some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted
> in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed
> to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF
> protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet
> Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it
> might be distributed.
>
> Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future
> registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully
> defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses.
> If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now,
> they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a
> Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for
> careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in
> relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now
> decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's
> responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN
> relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a
> function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring
> the positive consent of the community.
>
> In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet’s
> system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is
> needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent
> consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to
> accommodate it in other ways.
>
> If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of
> its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally
> unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We
> could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol
> parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol
> development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the
> opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
>
> Malcolm.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151101/dd943d7c/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list