[CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity

[Steve Crocker]

Greg, et al,

I appreciate your reference to the wider community.  One of the more strongly debated aspects during the Transition was whether ICANN should become a membership organization.  The Board pushed back against this idea because ICANN is responsible to the entire Internet community, not just the SOs and ACs or, more narrowly, the people who are active among the SOs and ACs.

The IETF and other groups may not have a formal role in the governance structure, though the IETF in particular does have a liaison seat on the Board, but they are very much part of the community in the wider sense and hence important vital to all of us.

Steve


On Mar 3, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Agree with Malcolm's points.  I would suggest:
> 
> ICANN Inc. to refer to the corporation including both the staff and the Board.
> ICANN Organization to refer to the staff only (from the CEO down) but NOT the Board
> 
> Also  agree that the Empowered Community is the entity.  
> EC SOAC Appointees (or Representatives) could be used for the individuals serving as the "body" of the EC at any given time.
> 
> Also, it's possible that John Curran was asking where the IETF and its participants would fit (i.e., are they within any "sphere" defined by a particular term?).  In that sense, similar to  Avri, I would say that the IETF and its participants are members of the ICANN Wider Community, individually and as IETF.
> 
> I'm mulling over whether there is something in the relationship between ICANN and IETF that makes that a less than perfect fit, but it's eluding my grasp....
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:40 PM avri doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The only goal is to find standard words for ICANN and its trinity of
> staff, board & community that can be used in the WS2 documents.  So I am
> not sure that the IETF, which has no role needing description in the WS2
> documents is relevant to the exercise.
> 
> I suppose the IETF, in at least some sense, as individuals and possibly
> even in the aggregate,  would, if they were willing, be part of the
> ICANN wider community. Perhaps, though, the absence of a PSO is a flaw
> in the current implementation and a complicating factor in the answer.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 02-Mar-17 17:55, John Curran wrote:
> > On 2 Mar 2017, at 1:52 PM, avri doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>
> > <mailto:avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> We are sending this for discussion by the full group
> >
> > Avri -
> >
> >    To aid in my understanding of the proposed terms, how would the
> > IETF and its
> >    participants be characterized per these definitions?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > /John
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> -- 
>  <>Greg Shatan
> C: 917-816-6428
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170303/88b92b80/attachment-0001.html>