Meh. I don’t understand the mission and scope – which will become fundamental bylaws – as something that describe various things that ICANN does. I understand it as the core responsibilities. I don’t understand why anyone would want “things that ICANN does now but may not do in the future” as a fundamental bylaw.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:49 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L <milton@gatech.edu>; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] The Board's take on the Mission Statement

Which is why it is part of the current scop of responsibilities that can change over time, and not part of the mission statement that should be much more stable.

Regards,

Bruce Tonkin

From: Mueller, Milton L [mailto:milton@gatech.edu]
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2015 7:35 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: RE: The Board's take on the Mission Statement

The addition of “allocation and assignment of names” was intended to capture the role of putting names in the root zone including new gTLDs and IDN-ccTLDs.”

I accept that this could be considered as part of “implementation of policies” = but it was trying to be more specific.

MM: But in fact, that is no longer an essential or exclusive part of ICANN’s mission. Names are put into the root zone by the IANA functions operator. ICANN may or may not be the IANA functions operator for names in the future. Many of the changes in the mission statement called for by the IAB and ISOC were predicated on the fact that ICANN is not presumed to be the IFO.