[CCWG-ACCT] Mission Statement

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sun Jan 10 22:46:33 UTC 2016


I think that this is a critically important question (or set of
questions).  I would not limit this inquiry to GAC advice. As such, I find
myself somewhat more aligned with Avri's and Andrew's formulations, though
they are not inconsistent with Finn's formulation, as far as it goes.

I would formulate the inquiry somewhat differently (and I think more
simply):

*What policies that have been adopted by ICANN or actions taken by ICANN
would be prohibited as "out of scope" if the revised Mission language is
applied?*

This avoids, in the first instance, the question of whether these policies
or actions are within ICANN's Mission.  If any policies or actions are
identified as being prohibited under the revised Mission language then
either (1) the policies and actions were out of scope when adopted or taken
or (2) the ICANN Mission is being changed.

Either way, I think it's important to be clear about the effects of the
revised language, in order to come to a common understanding of those
effects -- whether or not we agree that a particular effect is desirable.

We avoided this question once -- through the use of "grandfathering" -- but
we shouldn't avoid it again (especially since there is disagreement about
how far "grandfathering" goes).

The alternative is a future filled with "gotcha" scenarios, where
as-yet-unrevealed consequences are unveiled after the transition.  This
would fail both as a matter of transparency and as a matter of good
governance.

Greg

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Finn Petersen <FinPet at erst.dk> wrote:

> Milton,
>
>
>
> With all respect – you are answering the question! Sorry if I had not
> formulated the question properly.
>
>
>
> So let me try again.
>
>
>
> Is there, in your view, any kind of GAC advice that today (with the
> current Mission Statement) is within ICANN’s mission, but that in the
> future with the revised Mission Statement as defined in the CCWG 3rd draft
> report would be outside the revised mission for ICANN, so that the Board
> does not have the possibility any longer to take the advice into account?
>
>
>
> I hope the question is clearer now. There are only two possible answers:
> yes or no!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Finn
>
>
>
> *Fra:* Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton at gatech.edu]
> *Sendt:* 8. januar 2016 23:18
> *Til:* Finn Petersen; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Emne:* RE: Mission Statement
>
>
>
> Finn,
>
>
>
> From our latest exchanges regarding the new Mission Statement and as
> stated in the chat yesterday, DK is of the view that the Board can of
> course only take decisions based on GAC advice that is within the ICANN’s
> mission.
>
>
>
> MM: Thank you for that.
>
>
>
> But what we have been seeking is a clear answer to see if the proposed
> changes to the Mission Statement would imply that the Board in the future
> would be further constrained in taking GAC advice into account.
>
>
>
> MM: Well, it depends on the advice, doesn’t it?
>
>
>
> I understood from Becky during our CCWG call yesterday, “that ICANN should
> be able to continue to accept and implement GAC advice as it has been”– in
> other words the Board will have the same possibility to take into account
> GAC advice in the future (after the IANA transition) as the Board has
> today. If that is the case, I would think that it is now crystal clear to
> me.
>
>
>
> MM: As above, if GAC advises ICANN to do things that are outside its
> mission you can expect challenges.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160110/878e257d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list