I have run a comparison between the Mission Statement with respect to names, which has been on the table since January of this year, and the Board’s proposed substitute. In doing so, I have set aside totally the difficult wording issues relating to regulatory prohibition and contracting authority. I am also setting aside, for the moment, Alan G’s concern regarding the bottom–up policy development language (which I believe is addressed through the contracting language). By any measure, the changes are significant. Because the fundamental role of the IRP is to ensure that ICANN stays within its Mission, the changes in the Mission statement directly impact the effectiveness of the “crown jewels” of this accountability exercise. I have asked Bruce to explain what is encompassed by "the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone” that is not covered by “coordination of the development and implantation of policies.” I encourage each of you to study the side-by-side comparison attached to determine for yourself whether the Board’s approach is consistent with the goals of clarifying ICANN’s limited Mission. [cid:50016878-9AD1-4B24-93CE-645E1C14EDEF] J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
