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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sat Jan 9 16:16:09 UTC 2016

On 09-Jan-16 08:31, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>> On 8 Jan 2016, at 17:49, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> Perhaps we should test against a set of things that the Board decided
>> were in scope in the past years and see whether they would still be in
>> scope with the rewrite.
> Do you believe that the definition of whether something is in scope is whether the Board previously considered it in scope?

It is the history of interpreting the mission that we have to work with,
so seem to me that it has to be at the base of any discrimination we
need to do.

Really does not matter if you or I agree that it was in-scope or not.  A
Board advised by a talented  and risk adverse legal team made those
interpretations.  We can perhaps eliminate issues they decided on that
ended up in the  courts or that NTIA spoke out against for scope, if
any, from the set of issues under test.  In doing the stress test the
point is not the decision made but whether the issue was in-scope. 
(Note: I think the Board makes lots of incorrect decisions on in-scope
issues, the two are different questions. )

The point is to decide if the revised mission is the same.  We should be
able to do a substitution test.  Do we get the same in-scope value with
the revised  Mission &c. as we get with the current Bylaws.  Our various
groups of lawyers, the CCWG as well as ICANN's can advise on whether the
substitution of one set of language for another gives the same result.  

We have a large body of recommendations that the ICANN legal team has
made on whether issues were in-scope or not, e.g. whether an issue is
in-scope  is part of every GNSO PDP.  There are probably many issue
scope discussions that have been written up in the past that I know
nothing about.  Most of us may know nothing about them.  We may even
have documentation on legal reasoning that was done on the scope issue
in ICANN's archives. 

One reason that I think such a test may help settle the issue is that we
have no one arguing for changing ICANN's mission, just for
clarification.  A stress test can check whether we have succeeded in
doing that.  Without that we have no facts on which to decide that the
current Bylaws Mission and the proposed Mission &c. are indeed the same
from a legal scope point of view. 


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list