<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Let's not forgot what ICANN's Articles of Incorporation (a more foundational and fundamental document than any Bylaw) say in Section 3:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px">"the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet </span><abbr title="Protocol" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:rgb(153,153,153);color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px">Protocol</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px"> ("</span><abbr title="Internet Protocol or Intellectual Property" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:rgb(153,153,153);color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px">IP</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px">") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("</span><abbr title="Domain Name System" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:rgb(153,153,153);color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px">DNS</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px">"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the </span><abbr title="Domain Name System" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:rgb(153,153,153);color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px">DNS</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px"> root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet </span><abbr title="Domain Name System" style="direction:ltr;border-bottom-width:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-bottom-color:rgb(153,153,153);color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px">DNS</abbr><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:22.4px"> root server system...."</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If my recollection is correct, neither the CWG or the CCWG has proposed changing the Articles of Incorporation.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This is a statement of ICANN's purposes, until these are no longer ICANN's purposes.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Also, let's not forget that PTI is a "controlled affiliate" of ICANN -- a single member corporation in which ICANN is the sole member (i.e., a <i>de facto</i> wholly-owned subsidary of ICANN) -- and will be treated as such until a "separation" decision is made. PTI isolates the IANA functions from ICANN, structurally and legally, in order to enhance separability and accountability. It overstates the case to say that the "Post-Transition IANA" is separated from ICANN. That term should be reserved for the time when ICANN is no longer the "parent" of PTI.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Seun Ojedeji <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><p dir="ltr">On Dec 18, 2015 3:15 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" <<a href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu" target="_blank">milton@gatech.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> No. We have no problem with having the Scope of Responsibilities be fundamental bylaws,<br>
><br>
><br>
> MM: As noted in my previous message, I do have a problem if the scope includes non-core, nonexclusive things that ICANN does. <br>
></p>
</span><p dir="ltr">SO: +1 to this, so it's a matter of checking if the text in the scope is indeed out of remit of ICANN's actual role and responsibilities. Nevermind that this is a repetition of what I had earlier mentioned.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><span class="">> <br>
><br>
> and that obviously means we expect the Scope of Responsibilities to be fairly stable. Changes to the Scope of Responsibilities should require careful deliberation and considered action by the community as well as the Board. The Mission Statement should be even more stable and hardly ever require amendment.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> MM: For ICANN to include its role as IFO as a fundamental bylaw is a backdoor way of resisting and denying one of the most critical reforms of the IANA transition, namely the legal and structural separation of IFO from ICANN and the principle of separability. Sorry, Steve, that isn’t going to happen. Besides, to wrest IANA away from ICANN requires a massively complex process that certainly already qualifies as “careful deliberation and considered action.”<br>
><br></span>
SO: Okay this seem to be becoming wired to me as I no longer understand the intent here, are you saying that ICANN would seize to be the IFO(logically) post-transition? If the intent is to somehow recognise the subsidiary of ICANN (PTI) as the IFO in the fundamental bylaw then I agree otherwise I think having things embedded in fundamental bylaw is most appropriate security because these in itself is a literally fundamental issues of the organisation structure and should be treated as such.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<span class=""><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><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></p>
<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>