Andrew - I didn¹t see this before I sent out the last note. If you want to suggest text for the ³collaborates with² language to clarify, please do. I do not see how we can reach consensus on replacing ³coordinate² with ³support² in the chapeau, which is why I suggested addressing the problem by eliminating it. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer On 11/2/15, 10:02 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:41:06PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
I¹d like to try to narrow the issues in play here, in the hopes of reaching closure. Setting aside the proposed change to the chapeau (from coordinate to support) is there consensus that the following accurately describes ICANN¹s role vis a vis port and parameter numbers?
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers, ICANN¹s Mission is to [to be provided by the IETF].
If we drop the last bit as per your other note, we get
Collaborates with othr bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
So now, unless we include the chapeau text, I don't know whether we can have consensus on whether that captures ICANN's role with respect to protocol parameters. This item can only be understood by evaluating the term, "as appropriate", and that will always end up having to be determined by evaluating the text in context.
If the context is the chapeau in the bylaws today, then the context for "appropriate" would be a claim about ICANN's responsibilities that are, in my view and (as far as I can tell) the view of many others, much larger than its actual responsibilities
That is the whole point of the IAB's position on this. We've been pointing this same issue out since the public comment on the first draft (and, in fact, before then, but that's less relevant to this group).
We've lived with the over-broad mission for some time, but the reason the IAB was so concerned about this from our first public comment submission is because the CCWG proposes to make the mission super important. It's the basis for IRP and has to undergird all the IRP decisions. Given that there'll be no external contract to constrain ICANN (as the NTIA does now), the mission needs to reflect, accurately, the reality of what ICANN ought to be doing. The CCWG is creating (appropriately, in my view and in the view the IAB has expressed) mechanisms by which the community will hold the ICANN Board to account; but for that reason, the bylaws must be appropriate to the Board's and ICANN's responsibilities, or else the community will have good reason to ask why ICANN and its Board aren't doing what the bylaws say. If the mission is over-broad, that will create a problem. And the very same accountability mechanisms will make this particular bylaw extremely difficult to change later in order to make it smaller, because those who benefit from the more expansive position will need to persuade only a minitory to oppose the change.
There should be no surprise that this is an important issue. We pointed it out repeatedly, and even a casual analysis illustrates the danger in leaving the mission too broad given that the mission is about to become a more important part of the bylaws. The CCWG is rewriting the mission anyway -- that's why we commented -- and it seems to me that if you're going to rewrite the mission it would be a good idea to make it conform to reality.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com