[CCWG-ACCT] Mission Statement
Mueller, Milton L
milton at gatech.edu
Mon Jan 11 02:53:25 UTC 2016
FYI, we are not changing the intended mission of ICANN. To be more precise, we are giving the community the opportunity to use the IRP to challenge things ICANN does that are outside its stated mission. This means that we have to define the mission more carefully, because its meaning and interpretation will actually matter.
Under the current ICANN bylaws and accountability structures, there is no way to challenge ICANN's actions on the grounds that they exceeded its mission. Therefore, the actual definition of the mission mattered less.
So, to answer your question:
FP: 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?
MM: Yes, I think there are numerous things in the PICs that GAC imposed on registries outside the bottom up policy development process that were outside the mission, but since there was no effective way to appeal them, GAC and ICANN "got away with it."
MM: For the sake of the stability of the affected businesses, we have expressed a willingness to accept ("grandmother" or "grandfather," whatever your gender preference) existing PICs. But we would not accept such expansion in the future, if the advice is to do something that takes ICANN outside its mission.
FP: I hope the question is clearer now. There are only two possible answers: yes or no!
MM: I hope the answer is clearer now. And I hope you understand now that there is a lot more to be said about this than yes or no.
Dr. Milton L. Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community