[CCWG-ACCT] A modest attempt to advance the "Mission scoping" discussion

[Greg Shatan]

Describing one group as "Those ... who believe in mission limitations" sets
up a false and subtly pejorative discussion.  It's not unlike certain
political groups in the US that describe themselves as "patriots," with the
subtle implication that those who disagree with them are less patriotic or
even traitorous.

We all believe in mission limitations.  The boundaries of those limitations
is where viewpoints differ.  And I would submit that ever more aggressive
attempts to constrain ICANN's mission (rather than merely to clarify it)
and to draw circles with more and more of ICANN's current activities "out
of bounds" are responsible for a significant amount of this "delay" (if
that's what one wants to call it).  We have just had glimpses of upcoming
attempts to significantly rewrite the AGB, using the "new"
Mission/Scope/Core Values as a sword (or perhaps a machete) to do so.  It
is this Trojan Horse aspect of the Mission/Scope/Core Values changes that
is most troubling.  At a "mob sit-down," everyone pulls out all their
weapons and places them on the table (at least in the movies) -- that's
transparency. This group is far less transparent  Although a few of the
intended uses of the M/S/CV changes have been fairly well revealed, there
still seem to be many "concealed weapons" hidden in the M/S/CV by various
parties, with new ones barely glimpsed from time to time.  Assuming these
survive implementation, we are in for a ground war of significant
proportions once these changes are made effective in the ICANN Bylaws.

Greg

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 20/01/2016 14:04, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> >> First I believe the key principles of the 3rd draft remain
> >> acceptable :
> >>> And most importantly, regarding the discussion about "voluntary
> >>> commitments", as Avri points out, we might have a way forward if
> >>> we were to agree that *the scope of acceptable commitments in any
> >>> agreement should be defined by policy* (with all the related
> >>> process safeguards, including bottom up nature as well as
> >>> advisory inputs), instead of implementation. Then it would be up
> >>> to the policy makers to define whether eligibility conditions are
> >>> appropriate or not and should be enforced, whether a specific
> >>> form of stakeholder consultation or governance is acceptable,
> >>> etc.
>
> > What you are proposing here, Matthew, is that we abandon basic,
> > constitutional mission limitations and allow any policy to dictate
> > ICANN's mission. Not acceptable, sorry. It misses the whole point of
> > having a defined and limited mission.
>
> If that were what Mathieu were proposing then I would also object, but I
> didn't read him as meaning that.
>
> Policy is also required to remain within the scope of the Mission. So
> long as that principle remains inviolate, I can warmly support Mathieu's
> proposal (or Mathieu's proposed implementation of Holly's recommended
> way out of this discussion, or however you want to characterise it).
>
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>
>                  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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160120/75dbb5a1/attachment.html>