[CCWG-ACCT] Comments on Article 1 of the draft bylaws

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 6 Apr 2016 5:51 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> Other Substantive issues
> ------------------------------
>
> Section 1.1 (a) (iii)
> "Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of
Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers." I thought IANA
and IETF, not ICANN, do this. ICANN does it only insofar as it is
contracted to be the IFO. Does this belong here? Looking forward to the
comments of numbers and protocol communities here.
>
SO: NOT speaking on behalf of any community but as I understand it, the IFO
on paper for both communities will be that which they sign their respective
agreements with. So far I believe the DUO will be signing with ICANN.

> Section 1.2 (a) (vi)
> Please delete the words "that enhance ICANN's effectiveness." I don't see
why these words are needed. They seem to undercut or make conditional the
clear meaning of the first part of the sentence, which states that ICANN is
accountable to its community through the mechanisms defined in the bylaws.
>

SO: Is this deletion suggested because that part was not in the proposal
that was shipped to the NTIA?

> Section 1.2 (b) (vi)
> modify the sentence to read: "governments and public authorities are
responsible for public policy IN THEIR OWN JURISDICTION." This is just a
legal fact. Governments have no legal mandate for global public policy.
>

SO: Well it depends on what "public policy" mean in this context as I think
when we refer to community developed policies within ICANN, the word public
is not part of it. So we say "global policies" this is how they are called
within the RIR community as well (better put, global numbers policy or
resource policy). I wonder who else makes binding public policies other
than government?

> Clarity, copy editing and redundancy issues:
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 1.1 (a) (i), first bullet point:
> it says "facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security
and/or stability". No reason to have an "and/or" here, it should just be
"and". We want them all, and in other parts of the bylaws where
substantially the same list exists there is an "and."
>

SO: +1

> Section 1.1 (a) (i), second bullet point:
> "That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder
process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the
Internet's unique names systems." This sentence should end at
"multistakeholder process." The addition of "and designed to ensure the
stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems" is
redundant, as it is already stated in the first bullet point.
>
SO: I think I can also add my +1 to this so long as this was the intent of
the proposal forwarded to NTIA

> Section 1.2 (a) (i)
> Needlessly awkward and confusing wording. Why not just say "Administer
the DNS in a way that preserves and enhances its operational stability,
reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience and openness." ?
>

SO: I don't care much about how this is reworded so long as the
"coordination" is not muted and also not out of scope of the intent of
submitted proposal.

Regards
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160406/e34083a8/attachment-0001.html>