[CCWG-ACCT] A substantive question on Mission

[Chartier, Mike S]

Agree with Andrew. Wondered why we would exclude contracts not written (like the new RZMA).
One additional thought, it seems to me that the text doesn't make the mentioned agreements "automatically conform", just that they can't be challenged on that basis. I think the difference is that if they were deemed conforming, they would set precedence. 

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2016 12:17 AM
To: bylaws-coord at icann.org; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A substantive question on Mission

Hi,

I've been talking over the proposed bylaws text with my colleagues on the IAB IANA evolution program, and we're wondering about some things.

Section 1.1.d is apparently the section that got added in order to deal with the CCWG worry that the various agreements already in place might not be in conformance with the clarified Mission.

We think we get what most of these are for. 1.1.d.ii.A is there to ensure the registry and registrar agreements automatically conform to the Mission.  1.1.d.ii.B is there to ensure the ICANN-RIR agreement(s) and the ICANN-IETF agreement automatically conform.  1.1.d.ii.C covers the root zone maintainer.  1.1.d.ii.D covers the ICANN-PTI agreement.
and 1.1.d.ii.F permits the renewals without those renewals being subject to IRP or any of the other new powers.

But we have some questions:

    1. We (the IAB) earlier wanted to frame the Mission partly in
    terms of the existing MoU, and the argument was that the Mission
    couldn't reasonably contain a reference to an outside document
    like that. Yet here are those references again. What's the
    difference that now makes this ok?

    2. Several of these documents are not yet written or else haven't
    yet come into effect. How are we supposed to evaluate whether
    they're ok?  For instance, item D is only about the Naming
    Function Contract, but the ICG proposal says that PTI is going to
    do all the IANA functions (two of them on subcontract from
    ICANN). Not only is item D not yet written, but as far as I know
    the counterparty (PTI, which is maybe going to be named something
    else) doesn't even exist yet. How can that agreement be evaluated?
    What if it is inconsistent with the ICANN-IETF MoU? This is going
    to be a fundamental bylaw, so it'll be rather hard to fix.

    3. The CCWG's proposal, in Annex 05, at line 48, had a note to
    drafters that outlined the pieces that needed clarifications when
    the legal drafting happened. The clarifications seemed to be to
    ensure that certain agreements would be maintained. So what is the
    reason the strategic plan and operating plan have been included
    here in this sectiob 1.1.d? By including that, effectively
    anything at all -- no matter whether consistent with the Mission
    -- can be adopted by putting it into the strategic or operating
    plan (or a renewal of one of those plans, under clause F).

It would really help us in our evaluation to understand why these provisions are needed and why they're consistent with the CCWG recommendations.

Best regards,

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community