I think we need to start with the fundamental premise here. The point of this exercise has NEVER been to change ICANN¹s Mission, rather it has been to clarify the existing Mission to ensure that it creates a meaningful measure against which ICANN¹s behavior can be measured, so that ICANN can be held accountable. I do not believe that the proposed language changes the Mission, I think that ICANN¹s Mission has ALWAYS been to "ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet¹s unique identifier systems.² That¹s what the existing Bylaws say, that¹s what the CCWG proposal says. For a variety of very good reasons discussed at great length in Dublin and beyond, we have moved the ³coordination² role described in the existing Bylaws down into the specific description of the role ICANN plays in that regard with respect to names, numbers, and root servers, and we have changed ³coordination² to ³collaboration² with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers. The next part of Section 1 of the existing Mission statement provides details (in particular) about how that Mission is to be applied in specific contexts (names, numbers, port/parameter numbers, and root servers). We have preserved that structure in the CCWG proposal. I am ok describing the ³in particular² parts as ICANN¹s ³role² or ³scope of responsibility² in each specific context. I don¹t think that this changes anything, it¹s still part of a fundamental Bylaw, and ICANN¹s Mission (security and stability of the DNS) must be analyzed in light its role or scope in any particular setting (names, numbers, etc.). And, of course, once we adopt this approach, it makes it absolutely clear that the question of NetMundial or capacity building turns on whether or not the specific activity being undertaken is ³consistent with and reasonably necessary to ensure the security and stability of the DNS.² Although different folks apply this test and come out in different ways (e.g., on the NetMundial Initiative) I don¹t think we¹ve changed the test in any way. And that - have we changed the test - is the only meaningful measure. Wonder if the right way to look at this is to develop some Stress Tests on whether we¹ve changed the test? 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> On 1/8/16, 11:44 AM, "Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu" <Megan.Richards@ec.europa.eu> wrote:
My understanding was that the NetMundial INITIATIVE was where the "stepping out of line" was perceived not NetMundial itself - I can understand that some or many felt that way (this is not a comment either way just an observation so please don't all send me a ton of emails supporting or negating Fadi's participation in the NMI - was just trying to clarify the discussion (hope springs eternal!)
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 5:34 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
Hi,
Except that ICANN's work and the environment it is done within was indeed part of what was considered by NETmundial.
I know that for many, NET mundial was the origin of the objection about ICANN overstepping its mission. I never believed that and believe that it was an important event and within mission for ICANN to have done. I think changing the mission so as to exclude ICANN particpation and suppport for such activities would be a mistake and should not be included as a Transition goal. How about IGF, should ICANN stop its support? Is that a goal?
I agree we should maintain ICANN's already restricted mission. This is what we agreed to. We have not agreed to narrowing its scope as far as I understand.
avri
On 08-Jan-16 11:21, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Is floating and sustaining something like the Net Mundial Initiative, whose express purpose is to address public policy issues outside the names and numbers, and technical protocols and coordination, something within ICANN's mandate?
My answer: No.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=e9HJ-f04Sl40SijW7tV 81lL1CMBD5tPzCIJ_QQBaEuQ&s=-HZFm9k7awewcWTg09eL0KQVj0fxY9g32KaWNchqUVg&e=
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivir us&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8 WDDkMr4k&m=e9HJ-f04Sl40SijW7tV81lL1CMBD5tPzCIJ_QQBaEuQ&s=KlPzavsKkzin9vpLt 8s0ZqIuMWk29W5Nbt9XebY5HDM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=e9HJ-f04Sl40SijW7tV81l L1CMBD5tPzCIJ_QQBaEuQ&s=-HZFm9k7awewcWTg09eL0KQVj0fxY9g32KaWNchqUVg&e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_ listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwICAg&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=e9HJ-f04Sl40SijW7tV81l L1CMBD5tPzCIJ_QQBaEuQ&s=-HZFm9k7awewcWTg09eL0KQVj0fxY9g32KaWNchqUVg&e=