[CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Mon Nov 2 01:39:31 UTC 2015
BTW, I hope it was clear from my two posts that I supported neither
rewriting the Mission nor recreating the PSO at this point in time.
thanks
avri
On 02-Nov-15 09:14, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I can understand the IAB's concerns, viewed from the perspective of
> those who promulgate protocols.
>
> However, I have significant concerns, on several levels, about the
> timing and substance of the proposals, and the CCWG's remit and
> capacity to deal with this request at this time.
>
> This is no simple request. Depending on how it is handled, it could
> be seen to significantly change (whether expanding or contracting)
> ICANN's mission.
>
> Also, we are not beginning at the beginning. The "Mission" in the
> Bylaws cannot be considered without considering an even more
> foundational document, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation -- the
> document which creates (in a legal sense) ICANN. The Bylaws are a
> subsidiary document, and need to be consistent with the Articles. The
> Bylaws may be "laws," but the Articles are the "Constitution."
>
> The relevant section of the Articles (Section 3) reads:
>
> 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 Protocol ("IP") address
> space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the
> coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the
> development of policies for determining the circumstances under which
> new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv)
> overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server
> system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in
> furtherance of items (i) through (iv).
>
> We (and our counsel and ICANN's counsel) would need to consider if the
> Articles accurately reflect ICANN's mission and if they don't, how
> they should be changed. We would all need to consider how any
> proposed change in the Bylaws would need to be reflected by changing
> the Articles (and vice versa). In other words, we shouldn't even be
> talking about the Bylaws until we have finished talking about the
> Articles.
>
> Turning to the proposal at hand:
>
> The most critical change proposed by the IAB is to replace the base
> definition of ICANN's mission early in the chapeau text. This is the
> most fundamental statement of ICANN's mission in these Bylaws;
> everything else is just clarification. Where it now says that ICANN's
> mission is to "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's
> systems of unique identifiers," the IAB's proposal would change this
> to state that ICANN's mission is to "support, at the overall level,
> core Internet registries." This is a radical shift. Maybe
> unintentionally so, but radical nonetheless. Changing ICANN's focus
> from "coordinating" the Internet's "unique identifiers" to
> "supporting" core Internet "registries" would be a seismic shift.
> Specifically this looks like a great diminishment of ICANN's
> responsibility (from "coordinating" to "supporting") and scope (from
> "unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries").
>
> At one level, this is a "legal drafting" assignment. But legal
> drafting is a later stage in any process. What has to come first is a
> definition of what it is we are trying to say -- and what it is we are
> trying to change. Once we can answer that question accurately, the
> lawyers can draft language to make sure that our intentions are
> accurately carried out and to avoid any unintended consequences or
> interpretations.
>
> At this point in our process, I'm downright terrified at embarking on
> a revision of ICANN's fundamental mission. This should not be done in
> a rush -- every bit of what ICANN can do (and can't do) flows from
> here. Any such change needs to be carefully and deeply considered.
>
> Finally, with regard to the transition, I have to say that this is a
> "nice to have" (maybe) but not a "need to have." I would resist
> latching onto the transition and accountability process, and our
> working group, to consider and implement this change. This may seem
> like the "easiest" opportunity to get this change looked at, but that
> doesn't make it right.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am attending the IETF now, and I must say picked up no clue that
> they
> are even thinking about this. Lots of people come up to me and talk
> about ICANN and what we are up to. PSO was on no ones lips.
>
> What I do pick up is that they are hoping we make an end of it in real
> time and not keep adding issues to be dealt with before things can
> move
> on. the ones that knew of the Dublin compromises where rather pleased
> and worried about the impression coming out of CCWG that some of those
> might be unraveling with people arguing for their old positions.
>
> I will keep listening for the rest of the week and if hear anyone
> worrying about a resurgence of the PSO, will be sure to let the
> list know.
>
> Just saying.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 02-Nov-15 06:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
> > But,
> >
> > do they want that?
> >
> > el
> >
> > On 2015-11-01 23:24 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
> >> Dear Colleagues,
> >>
> >> From three operational communities, two are currently well
> represented
> >> in the ICANN
> >>
> >> Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO,
> >>
> >> Numbers by ASO
> >>
> >> Protocol and technical parameters by No one,
> >>
> >> It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively
> contributes to
> >> the process but would it be possible to seek 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
> >>
> >> For your kind consideration
> >>
> >> Kavouss
> >>
> >>
> >> 2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade
> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> >> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com
> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>>:
> >>
> >> I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance
> >> was without real support from the stakeholders and has
> limited the
> >> Board's credibility.
> >>
> >> The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew
> >> from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of
> >> elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere
> >> from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
> >>
> >> When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned,
> >> and experienced from the technical community...
> >>
> >> we have lost that particular role...
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB
> comments on
> >> Mission Statement
> >> From: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> >> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
> >> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100
> >> CC: roelof.meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>
> <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer at sidn.nl>>;
> >> lyman at interisle.net <mailto:lyman at interisle.net>
> <mailto:lyman at interisle.net <mailto:lyman at interisle.net>>;
> >> becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>;
> iab at iab.org <mailto:iab at iab.org>
> >> <mailto:iab at iab.org <mailto:iab at iab.org>>; ssac at icann.org
> <mailto:ssac at icann.org> <mailto:ssac at icann.org
> <mailto:ssac at icann.org>>;
> >> marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>
> >> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> >>
> >>
> >> +1.
> >>
> >> I suggest that the solution to this problem is to
> re-instate the PSO.
> >>
> >> (At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was
> >> interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT
> >> standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not
> >> correct, nor appropriate.)
> >>
> >> There has to be a global level of "coordinating the
> allocation and
> >> assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with
> >> accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN,
> then where?
> >>
> >> CW
> >>
> >> On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade
> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> >> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com
> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable
> language.
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very
> >> difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Marilyn Cade
> >>
> >> > From: Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
> <mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> <mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
> <mailto:Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>>
> >> > To: lyman at interisle.net <mailto:lyman at interisle.net>
> >> <mailto:lyman at interisle.net
> <mailto:lyman at interisle.net>>; Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> >> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
> >> > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000
> >> > CC: IAB at Iab.org <mailto:IAB at Iab.org
> <mailto:IAB at Iab.org>>; ssac at icann.org <mailto:ssac at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:ssac at icann.org <mailto:ssac at icann.org>>;
> >> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
> >> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB
> comments
> >> on Mission Statement
> >> >
> >> > Dear all,
> >> >
> >> > In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA
> >> Stewardship Transition
> >> > nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability.
> >> > We should not deal with this.
> >> > Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a
> >> fundamental bylaw and
> >> > thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the
> community
> >> feels that
> >> > something should be fixed here, it will be easier
> than it is now.
> >> >
> >> > best,
> >> >
> >> > Roelof
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 31-10-15 09:56,
> >> "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> >>
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on
> >> > behalf of Lyman Chapin"
> >> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> >>
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>>
> >> > on behalf of lyman at interisle.net
> <mailto:lyman at interisle.net> <mailto:lyman at interisle.net
> <mailto:lyman at interisle.net>>>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Becky and CCWG members -
> >> > >
> >> > >Because the mission statement will be a fundamental
> bylaw -
> >> and therefore
> >> > >by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the
> concern
> >> expressed by
> >> > >the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin
> meeting) is a
> >> lot more
> >> > >important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of
> >> preferring
> >> > >different words to describe roughly the same thing.
> ICANN's
> >> current
> >> > >mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple
> >> matter of fact,
> >> > >ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level,
> the global
> >> Internet¹s
> >> > >system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical
> >> standard, the
> >> > >alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission
> >> statement) proposed
> >> > >by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis
> alone it
> >> seems obvious
> >> > >that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to
> the one
> >> that stands
> >> > >in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work
> with the
> >> IAB to
> >> > >develop and mutually agree upon more accurate
> wording, and we
> >> recommend
> >> > >that it do so.
> >> > >
> >> > >- Lyman and Julie
> >> > >
> >> > >On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> CCWG Members
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the
> Mission
> >> Statement,
> >> > >>which currently describes ICANN¹s role of
> coordinating the
> >> allocation
> >> > >>and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers,
> including
> >> Protocol port
> >> > >>and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall,
> in early
> >> comments
> >> > >>they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to
> >> ³support.² WP2
> >> > >>discussed this and declined to modify the existing
> language
> >> in the
> >> > >>Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO,
> the Root Server
> >> > >>community, and the port/parameter community to
> provide their own
> >> > >>description of what policy ³coordination² would
> mean in each
> >> (i.e.,
> >> > >>names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters)
> context.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me
> that the IAB
> >> remains
> >> > >>very concerned about the Mission Statement.
> According to
> >> Andrew (on
> >> > >>behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement
> (including the
> >> chapeau) is
> >> > >>misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and
> has been
> >> false at
> >> > >>least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting
> >> Organization] and
> >> > >>arguably before that. In particular, according to
> the IAB,
> >> ³ICANN does
> >> > >>not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global
> Internet's
> >> systems of
> >> > >>unique identifiers.²
> >> > >>
> >> > >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in
> Dublin, and
> >> Steve
> >> > >>Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s
> >> description of
> >> > >>its role in this area more precisely:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan.
> And I'm
> >> chair of the
> >> > >>Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN
> currently
> >> has text
> >> > >>that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at
> the overall
> >> level, the
> >> > >>global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End
> quote.
> >> That's not
> >> > >>precisely true any more and hasn't been at least
> since the
> >> protocol
> >> > >>supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm
> >> wondering whether
> >> > >>the Board is open to changing this part of the
> mission since
> >> it's open
> >> > >>anyway in the CCWG process?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here.
> >> Andrew, thank
> >> > >>you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable
> >> disparity between
> >> > >>some of the words that we use to describe ourselves
> and some
> >> of the
> >> > >>words that our close friends use to describe us. We
> have --
> >> and we've --
> >> > >>some of us have been paying attention for a while.
> The good
> >> news -- I
> >> > >>think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last
> >> relatively short
> >> > >>period of time, we have built a much stronger technical
> >> team, step one.
> >> > >>And step 2 is would are we have actually got them
> connected
> >> to the
> >> > >>communications process. Harder than I would have
> liked it to
> >> have been.
> >> > >>But it's now there. And it's been one of these
> behind the
> >> scenes things
> >> > >>of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going
> >> forward, we're
> >> > >>going to try to align our words in a more careful way.
> >> There's always a
> >> > >>lot of equities about how many words you use to
> describe
> >> yourself which,
> >> > >>you know. But I think some greater precision and
> adjustment
> >> of the
> >> > >>nuances is well in order.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which
> addresses
> >> the concerns
> >> > >>of its members. I have attached a side-by-side
> comparison of
> >> (1) the
> >> > >>Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG
> proposal;
> >> and (3) the
> >> > >>IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed
> changes appear
> >> to be more
> >> > >>dramatic than they actually are. Most of the
> changes reflect
> >> moving the
> >> > >>language around. The substantive changes include:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> IAB Proposal
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall
> level,
> >> the global
> >> > >>Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall
> level, core
> >> Internet
> >> > >>registries²
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of
> ³Domain
> >> Names
> >> > >>(forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of
> ³names
> >> in the root
> >> > >>zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of
> >> protocol port and
> >> > >>parameter numbers²
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as
> appropriate to
> >> publish core
> >> > >>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is
> attached.
> >> Given the
> >> > >>strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I
> thought it was
> >> important to
> >> > >>raise this issue for discussion.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Becky
> >> > >>
> >> > >> J. Beckwith Burr
> >> > >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30
> >> >
> >>October.pdf>_______________________________________________
> >> > >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >> > >> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list