On 2015-12-17 09:13, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Speaking personally I have no issue with also including the last two paragraphs in your note below which is really a limitation on what policies can be created and how they should be created. This text is really lifted from the registry and registrar agreements so ICANN has already committed to that. It is not something that we as a board directly discussed.
I must say I find it somewhat shocking that the Board returned to us a counter-proposal that deletes such an important element without even directly discussing the deletion. Here in the CCWG we engage in a kind of Kremlinology, poring over the details of Board statements to try and figure out their inner-meaning and exactly what the Board wants or will accept. If such a deletion is driven not by a desire to avoid that text for a motivation at which we must guess, but instead by mere inadvertence or thoughtlessness, I am much less inclined to give supervening weight to the Board's input. Malcolm.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
FROM: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] ON BEHALF OF Burr, Becky SENT: Thursday, 17 December 2015 3:00 AM TO: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> SUBJECT: [CCWG-ACCT] The Board's take on the Mission Statement
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.
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 [1]
Links: ------ [1] http://www.neustar.biz
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA