<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Colleagues,</div><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">From three
operational communities, two are currently well represented in the ICANN</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">Names are
mainly represented <span> </span>by GNSO and to great
extent ccNSO,</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">Numbers by
ASO</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">Protocol and
technical parameters by No one,</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">It is true
that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to the process but would
it be possible to seek <span> </span>from them whether
in their view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by
them in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission
.Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt"> For your kind consideration </span></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:8pt">Kavouss </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com" target="_blank">marilynscade@hotmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr">I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance<div>was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the </div><div>Board's credibility.</div><div><br></div><div>The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew</div><div>from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of</div><div>elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere</div><div>from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.</div><div><br></div><div>When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned,</div><div>and experienced from the technical community... </div><div><br></div><div>we have lost that particular role... </div><div><br><div><hr><span>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement<br></span>From: <a href="mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu" target="_blank">lists@christopherwilkinson.eu</a><br>Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100<br>CC: <a href="mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">roelof.meijer@sidn.nl</a>; <a href="mailto:lyman@interisle.net" target="_blank">lyman@interisle.net</a>; <a href="mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">becky.burr@neustar.biz</a>; <a href="mailto:iab@iab.org" target="_blank">iab@iab.org</a>; <a href="mailto:ssac@icann.org" target="_blank">ssac@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com" target="_blank">marilynscade@hotmail.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><div><div class="h5"><br><br>+1. <div><br></div><div>I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO. </div><div><br></div><div>(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a <i>'coup'</i> by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)</div><div><br></div><div>There has to be a global level of "<span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt">coordinating the allocation </span><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:12pt">and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers </span><span style="font-size:16px">…</span><span style="font-size:12pt"> ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?</span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:12pt"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:12pt">CW</span></font></div><div><br></div><div>On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <<a href="mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com" target="_blank">marilynscade@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><div><br><blockquote><div style="font:12pt/normal Calibri;text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal"><div dir="ltr">I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language.<div>I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community. </div><div><br></div><div>Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion. </div><div><br></div><div>And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.</div><div><br></div><div>As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views</div><div><br></div><div>Marilyn Cade<br><br><div>> From:<span> </span><a href="mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl" target="_blank">Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl</a><br>> To:<span> </span><a href="mailto:lyman@interisle.net" target="_blank">lyman@interisle.net</a>;<span> </span><a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a><br>> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000<br>> CC:<span> </span><a href="mailto:IAB@Iab.org" target="_blank">IAB@Iab.org</a>;<span> </span><a href="mailto:ssac@icann.org" target="_blank">ssac@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement<br>><span> </span><br>> Dear all,<br>><span> </span><br>> In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition<br>> nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability.<br>> We should not deal with this.<br>> Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and<br>> thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that<br>> something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.<br>><span> </span><br>> best,<br>><span> </span><br>> Roelof<br>><span> </span><br>><span> </span><br>><span> </span><br>><span> </span><br>> On 31-10-15 09:56, "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><span> </span>on<br>> behalf of Lyman Chapin" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><br>> on behalf of<span> </span><a href="mailto:lyman@interisle.net" target="_blank">lyman@interisle.net</a>> wrote:<br>><span> </span><br>> >Becky and CCWG members -<br>> ><br>> >Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore<br>> >by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by<br>> >the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more<br>> >important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring<br>> >different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current<br>> >mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact,<br>> >ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s<br>> >system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the<br>> >alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed<br>> >by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious<br>> >that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands<br>> >in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to<br>> >develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend<br>> >that it do so.<br>> ><br>> >- Lyman and Julie<br>> ><br>> >On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>> ><br>> >> CCWG Members <br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement,<br>> >>which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation<br>> >>and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port<br>> >>and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments<br>> >>they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2<br>> >>discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the<br>> >>Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server<br>> >>community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own<br>> >>description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e.,<br>> >>names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains<br>> >>very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on<br>> >>behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is<br>> >>misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at<br>> >>least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and<br>> >>arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does<br>> >>not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of<br>> >>unique identifiers.²<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve<br>> >>Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of<br>> >>its role in this area more precisely:<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the<br>> >>Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text<br>> >>that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the<br>> >>global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not<br>> >>precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol<br>> >>supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether<br>> >>the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open<br>> >>anyway in the CCWG process?<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank<br>> >>you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between<br>> >>some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the<br>> >>words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've --<br>> >>some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I<br>> >>think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short<br>> >>period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one.<br>> >>And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the<br>> >>communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been.<br>> >>But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things<br>> >>of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're<br>> >>going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a<br>> >>lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which,<br>> >>you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the<br>> >>nuances is well in order.<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns<br>> >>of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the<br>> >>Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the<br>> >>IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more<br>> >>dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the<br>> >>language around. The substantive changes include:<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> IAB Proposal<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global<br>> >>Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet<br>> >>registries²<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names<br>> >>(forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root<br>> >>zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and<br>> >>parameter numbers²<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core<br>> >>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the<br>> >>strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to<br>> >>raise this issue for discussion.<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> Becky<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> J. Beckwith Burr<br>> >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>> >><span> </span><br>> >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30<br>> >>October.pdf>_______________________________________________<br>> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> >> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>> >><span> </span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>> ><br>> >_______________________________________________<br>> >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> ><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>> ><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>> ><br>><span> </span><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>><span> </span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div> </div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>