On 18/12/2015 10:48, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Kavouss,
Never ever at any organisation the " Mission 2 is replaced by" Scope of responsibility" they are entirely two different things
The mission is not being replaced by a Scope of Responsibility.
The Board is actually using a standard definition of mission.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_statement
“A mission statement is a statement which is used as a way of communicating the purpose of the organization. Although most of the time it will remain the same for a long period of time, it is not uncommon for organizations to update their mission statement and generally happens when an organization evolves. Mission statements are normally short and simple statements which outline what the organization's purpose is and are related to the specific sector an organization operates in.”
The CCWG draft mission does not meet that standard.
No. Not that there's any particular reason why it should be necessary to meet the Wikipedia description for a typical mission statement; ICANN is quite an atypical corporation. I do agree that it does look unusual though. The way we are using the Mission, however, reads to me more like the "Objects" clause for a Memorandum of Association of a corporation intended to have a limited purpose (such as a certain non-profits, and unlike a normal commercial for-profit corporation). I would't be greatly surprised if when this goes to lawyers they advise that this whole section should be moved there, instead of being in the Bylaws.
The Scope of Responsibilities are still fundamental bylaws that cannot be changed without community approval.
We have no objection to appropriate language in our bylaws that set out the rules of the organization. A mission though should be short and simple.
We are using the "Mission" as a governance tool. I can see why you might wish to use the term "Mission" as part of a communications tool, and create another term, such as "Scope of Responsibilities" to perform the governance function. So long as the governance effect is the same, I'm OK with that. But the text included in the "Scope" must have exactly the same weight and effect as if it were included in the "Mission"; otherwise you could argue that there was a an inconsistency or mismatch between the Mission and Scope, and that the Mission must take precedence; this must be made impossible. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA