[CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Fri Jan 8 17:25:26 UTC 2016

I think we need to start with the fundamental premise here.  The point of
this exercise has NEVER been to change ICANN¹s Mission, rather it has been
clarify the existing Mission to ensure that it creates a meaningful
measure against which ICANN¹s behavior can be measured, so that ICANN can
be held

I do not believe that the proposed language changes the Mission, I think
that ICANN¹s Mission has ALWAYS been to "ensure the stable and
secure operation of the Internet¹s unique identifier systems.²  That¹s
what the existing Bylaws say, that¹s what the CCWG proposal says.  For a
variety of very good reasons discussed at great length in Dublin and
beyond, we have moved the ³coordination² role described in the existing
Bylaws down
into the specific description of the role ICANN plays in that regard with
respect to names, numbers, and root servers, and we have changed
to ³collaboration² with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers.

The next part of Section 1 of the existing Mission statement provides
details (in particular) about how that Mission is to be applied in
specific contexts
(names, numbers, port/parameter numbers, and root servers).  We have
preserved that structure in the CCWG proposal. I am ok describing the ³in
particular² parts as ICANN¹s ³role² or ³scope of responsibility² in each
specific context.  I don¹t think that this changes anything, it¹s still
part of a fundamental Bylaw, and ICANN¹s Mission (security and stability
of the DNS) must be analyzed in light its role or scope in any particular
setting (names, numbers, etc.).

And, of course, once we adopt this approach, it makes it absolutely clear
that the question of NetMundial or capacity building turns on whether or
not the specific activity being undertaken is ³consistent with and
reasonably necessary to ensure the security and stability of the DNS.²
Although different folks apply this test and come out in different ways
(e.g., on the NetMundial Initiative) I don¹t think we¹ve changed the test
in any way.  And that - have we changed the test - is the only meaningful

Wonder if the right way to look at this is to develop some Stress Tests on
whether we¹ve changed the test?

J. Beckwith Burr 
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz

On 1/8/16, 11:44 AM, "Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu"
<Megan.Richards at ec.europa.eu> wrote:

>My understanding was that the NetMundial INITIATIVE was where the
>"stepping out of line" was perceived not NetMundial itself -  I can
>understand that some or many felt that way (this is not a comment either
>way just an observation so please don't all send me a ton of emails
>supporting or negating  Fadi's participation in the NMI - was just trying
>to clarify the discussion (hope springs eternal!)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
>Avri Doria
>Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 5:34 PM
>To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
>Except that ICANN's work and the environment it is done within was
>indeed part of what was considered by NETmundial.
>I know that for many, NET mundial was the origin of the objection about
>ICANN overstepping its mission.  I never believed that and believe that
>it was an important event and within mission for ICANN to have done.  I
>think changing the mission so as to exclude ICANN particpation and
>suppport for such activities would be a mistake and should not be
>included as a Transition goal.  How about IGF, should ICANN stop its
>support?  Is that a goal?
>I agree we should maintain ICANN's already restricted mission.  This is
>what we agreed to.  We have not agreed to narrowing its scope as far as
>I understand.
>On 08-Jan-16 11:21, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> Is floating and sustaining something like the Net Mundial Initiative,
>> whose express purpose is to address public policy issues outside the
>> names and numbers, and technical protocols and coordination, something
>> within ICANN's mandate?
>> My answer: No.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: default.xml
Type: application/xml
Size: 3222 bytes
Desc: default.xml
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160108/c72f1d39/default.xml>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list