[Wp2-compactmission] Mission Statement Revised and Formatted

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 2015-03-29 21:36, Burr, Becky wrote:
> Hello All -
> 
> In advance of our discussion tomorrow I am working through the Mission
> and Core Values docs to reflect input (both substantive and
> presentation wise) from Istanbul. This document addresses the Mission
> statement only, remaining sections on (1) Reconciling competing
> Commitments and Core Values; (2) Fundamental Commitments; and (3) Core
> Values to follow.
> 
> Please review.

Thank you Becky.

Reviewing this, it carries over what look like an oddity. I'm not sure
whether it is significant or not. Perhaps it is simply inelegant.

The oddity is that the mission authorises three separate (but presumably
interrelated) areas of activity for DNS:

1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique 
identifiers for the Internet, which are Domain names (forming a system 
referred to as "DNS");
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server 
system
3.	Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related 
to these technical functions.
a.	 In this role, with respect to domain names, ICANN’s mission is to 
coordinate the development and implementation of Consensus Policies (as 
defined in Specification 1) that (a) ensure the stable and secure 
operation of the Internet’s unique names systems and (b) that involve 
issues for which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably 
necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, 
security and/or stability of the DNS.


Are these really three separate areas?
What is done under (1) and (2) that does not lie under (3)?
Is (3) really a sub-set of (1)? If so, what else lies under (1)?

I see that the so-called picket-fence is being applied to (3) alone.
My instinct is that it ought to be applied to everything, because I 
don't
see that ICANN should be doing anything that does not reasonably need to 
be
done at the global level. But not being sure what, if anything, is 
expected
to lie under (1) that does not lie under (3), I cannot be sure.

One of the things that I am wondering about is "Suppose that ICANN 
wished to
undertake some activity that lies outside the picket fence. Could it 
find authorisation
for that activity in the mission as defined, by placing it under (1)?"
I don't think the answer as clear as it could be, and so we probably 
still have work
to do on this text.

Malcolm.

-- 
             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
            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY

          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA