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

Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Mon Jan 11 08:03:24 UTC 2016

Agree - that is what policy people and lawyers are supposed to do when proposing an amendment to an existing regulation. 



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Samstag, 9. Januar 2016 17:16
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion

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.

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list