[CCWG-ACCT] The Board's take on the Mission Statement

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
Never ever at any organisation the " Mission 2 is replaced by" Scope of
responsibility" they are entirely  two different things
One is at the top of Goals below that is GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND ....
We should not contradict someting which is agreed globally
Kavouss

2015-12-18 9:35 GMT+01:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> On Dec 18, 2015 7:27 AM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > .  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.
> >
> SO: FWIW my +1 to the above statement as it's inline with my understanding
> as well. That said, I expect that legal wordings will be in place to ensure
> that IANA functions operation does not unilaterally get moved by ICANN from
> PTI to another department within ICANN. If that is what Milton is trying to
> say then I agree to that intent(even though it's outrageous scenario) and I
> believe that should be a fundamental bylaw text.
>
> Regards
>
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Dec 18, 2015 3:15 AM, "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > No.  We have no problem with having the Scope of Responsibilities be
> fundamental bylaws,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > MM: As noted in my previous message, I do have a problem if the scope
> includes non-core, nonexclusive things that ICANN does.
> >> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.”
> >> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151218/01d7ec38/attachment-0001.html>