hi, Sébastien and I [were] volunteered for the task of trying to clarify the words to be used in WS2 of documents when referring to ICANN, its workers, its board, and its community. While there were a few terms we could not come to agreement on, we have produced the enclosed draft terminology. It includes alternatives in the places where we disagreed. The doc can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JadPh5TJQ_-_LNfVu3EicZct1JMKk__b03W43IsF...> As always the document is open for suggestions and comments We are sending this for discussion by the full group and, if it is acceptable in general, for help in deciding between the alternatives numbered A1/A2 & B1/B2. thanks Avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi, The only goal is to find standard words for ICANN and its trinity of staff, board & community that can be used in the WS2 documents. So I am not sure that the IETF, which has no role needing description in the WS2 documents is relevant to the exercise. I suppose the IETF, in at least some sense, as individuals and possibly even in the aggregate, would, if they were willing, be part of the ICANN wider community. Perhaps, though, the absence of a PSO is a flaw in the current implementation and a complicating factor in the answer. avri On 02-Mar-17 17:55, John Curran wrote:
On 2 Mar 2017, at 1:52 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
... We are sending this for discussion by the full group
Avri -
To aid in my understanding of the proposed terms, how would the IETF and its participants be characterized per these definitions?
Thanks! /John
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Agree with Malcolm's points. I would suggest: ICANN Inc. to refer to the corporation including both the staff and the Board. ICANN Organization to refer to the staff only (from the CEO down) but NOT the Board Also agree that the Empowered Community is the entity. EC SOAC Appointees (or Representatives) could be used for the individuals serving as the "body" of the EC at any given time. Also, it's possible that John Curran was asking where the IETF and its participants would fit (i.e., are they within any "sphere" defined by a particular term?). In that sense, similar to Avri, I would say that the IETF and its participants are members of the ICANN Wider Community, individually and as IETF. I'm mulling over whether there is something in the relationship between ICANN and IETF that makes that a less than perfect fit, but it's eluding my grasp.... Greg On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:40 PM avri doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
The only goal is to find standard words for ICANN and its trinity of staff, board & community that can be used in the WS2 documents. So I am not sure that the IETF, which has no role needing description in the WS2 documents is relevant to the exercise.
I suppose the IETF, in at least some sense, as individuals and possibly even in the aggregate, would, if they were willing, be part of the ICANN wider community. Perhaps, though, the absence of a PSO is a flaw in the current implementation and a complicating factor in the answer.
avri
On 02-Mar-17 17:55, John Curran wrote:
On 2 Mar 2017, at 1:52 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
... We are sending this for discussion by the full group
Avri -
To aid in my understanding of the proposed terms, how would the IETF and its participants be characterized per these definitions?
Thanks! /John
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com
Greg, et al, I appreciate your reference to the wider community. One of the more strongly debated aspects during the Transition was whether ICANN should become a membership organization. The Board pushed back against this idea because ICANN is responsible to the entire Internet community, not just the SOs and ACs or, more narrowly, the people who are active among the SOs and ACs. The IETF and other groups may not have a formal role in the governance structure, though the IETF in particular does have a liaison seat on the Board, but they are very much part of the community in the wider sense and hence important vital to all of us. Steve On Mar 3, 2017, at 4:20 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree with Malcolm's points. I would suggest:
ICANN Inc. to refer to the corporation including both the staff and the Board. ICANN Organization to refer to the staff only (from the CEO down) but NOT the Board
Also agree that the Empowered Community is the entity. EC SOAC Appointees (or Representatives) could be used for the individuals serving as the "body" of the EC at any given time.
Also, it's possible that John Curran was asking where the IETF and its participants would fit (i.e., are they within any "sphere" defined by a particular term?). In that sense, similar to Avri, I would say that the IETF and its participants are members of the ICANN Wider Community, individually and as IETF.
I'm mulling over whether there is something in the relationship between ICANN and IETF that makes that a less than perfect fit, but it's eluding my grasp....
Greg
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:40 PM avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi,
The only goal is to find standard words for ICANN and its trinity of staff, board & community that can be used in the WS2 documents. So I am not sure that the IETF, which has no role needing description in the WS2 documents is relevant to the exercise.
I suppose the IETF, in at least some sense, as individuals and possibly even in the aggregate, would, if they were willing, be part of the ICANN wider community. Perhaps, though, the absence of a PSO is a flaw in the current implementation and a complicating factor in the answer.
avri
On 02-Mar-17 17:55, John Curran wrote:
On 2 Mar 2017, at 1:52 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
... We are sending this for discussion by the full group
Avri -
To aid in my understanding of the proposed terms, how would the IETF and its participants be characterized per these definitions?
Thanks! /John
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> -- <>Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 4 Mar 2017 04:21, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Agree with Malcolm's points. I would suggest: ICANN Inc. to refer to the corporation including both the staff and the Board. ICANN Organization to refer to the staff only (from the CEO down) but NOT the Board SO: This works as well, but it then mean that ICANN would imply the trinity (community, Board, staff) Regards Also agree that the Empowered Community is the entity. EC SOAC Appointees (or Representatives) could be used for the individuals serving as the "body" of the EC at any given time. Also, it's possible that John Curran was asking where the IETF and its participants would fit (i.e., are they within any "sphere" defined by a particular term?). In that sense, similar to Avri, I would say that the IETF and its participants are members of the ICANN Wider Community, individually and as IETF. I'm mulling over whether there is something in the relationship between ICANN and IETF that makes that a less than perfect fit, but it's eluding my grasp.... Greg On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:40 PM avri doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
The only goal is to find standard words for ICANN and its trinity of staff, board & community that can be used in the WS2 documents. So I am not sure that the IETF, which has no role needing description in the WS2 documents is relevant to the exercise.
I suppose the IETF, in at least some sense, as individuals and possibly even in the aggregate, would, if they were willing, be part of the ICANN wider community. Perhaps, though, the absence of a PSO is a flaw in the current implementation and a complicating factor in the answer.
avri
On 02-Mar-17 17:55, John Curran wrote:
On 2 Mar 2017, at 1:52 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
... We are sending this for discussion by the full group
Avri -
To aid in my understanding of the proposed terms, how would the IETF and its participants be characterized per these definitions?
Thanks! /John
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Whilst I agree that these distinctions are needed, I would suggest that in British English the word 'organisation' would be more likely to be interpreteted as "the whole". It's a goto word for reporters when something is not entirely clear. If we mean staff, let's say 'Staff'. On 03/03/17 21:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
Agree with Malcolm's points. I would suggest:
ICANN Inc. to refer to the corporation including both the staff and the Board. ICANN Organization to refer to the staff only (from the CEO down) but NOT the Board
Also agree that the Empowered Community is the entity. EC SOAC Appointees (or Representatives) could be used for the individuals serving as the "body" of the EC at any given time.
Also, it's possible that John Curran was asking where the IETF and its participants would fit (i.e., are they within any "sphere" defined by a particular term?). In that sense, similar to Avri, I would say that the IETF and its participants are members of the ICANN Wider Community, individually and as IETF.
I'm mulling over whether there is something in the relationship between ICANN and IETF that makes that a less than perfect fit, but it's eluding my grasp....
Greg
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:40 PM avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
The only goal is to find standard words for ICANN and its trinity of staff, board & community that can be used in the WS2 documents. So I am not sure that the IETF, which has no role needing description in the WS2 documents is relevant to the exercise.
I suppose the IETF, in at least some sense, as individuals and possibly even in the aggregate, would, if they were willing, be part of the ICANN wider community. Perhaps, though, the absence of a PSO is a flaw in the current implementation and a complicating factor in the answer.
avri
On 02-Mar-17 17:55, John Curran wrote: > On 2 Mar 2017, at 1:52 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> > <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote: >> ... >> We are sending this for discussion by the full group > > Avri - > > To aid in my understanding of the proposed terms, how would the > IETF and its > participants be characterized per these definitions? > > Thanks! > /John > >
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it. Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames. wolfgang -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Nigel Roberts Gesendet: Sa 04.03.2017 07:15 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity Whilst I agree that these distinctions are needed, I would suggest that in British English the word 'organisation' would be more likely to be interpreteted as "the whole". It's a goto word for reporters when something is not entirely clear. If we mean staff, let's say 'Staff'. On 03/03/17 21:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
Agree with Malcolm's points. I would suggest:
ICANN Inc. to refer to the corporation including both the staff and the Board. ICANN Organization to refer to the staff only (from the CEO down) but NOT the Board
Also agree that the Empowered Community is the entity. EC SOAC Appointees (or Representatives) could be used for the individuals serving as the "body" of the EC at any given time.
Also, it's possible that John Curran was asking where the IETF and its participants would fit (i.e., are they within any "sphere" defined by a particular term?). In that sense, similar to Avri, I would say that the IETF and its participants are members of the ICANN Wider Community, individually and as IETF.
I'm mulling over whether there is something in the relationship between ICANN and IETF that makes that a less than perfect fit, but it's eluding my grasp....
Greg
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:40 PM avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
The only goal is to find standard words for ICANN and its trinity of staff, board & community that can be used in the WS2 documents. So I am not sure that the IETF, which has no role needing description in the WS2 documents is relevant to the exercise.
I suppose the IETF, in at least some sense, as individuals and possibly even in the aggregate, would, if they were willing, be part of the ICANN wider community. Perhaps, though, the absence of a PSO is a flaw in the current implementation and a complicating factor in the answer.
avri
On 02-Mar-17 17:55, John Curran wrote: > On 2 Mar 2017, at 1:52 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> > <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote: >> ... >> We are sending this for discussion by the full group > > Avri - > > To aid in my understanding of the proposed terms, how would the > IETF and its > participants be characterized per these definitions? > > Thanks! > /John > >
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Even if I agreed on most of the definitions in the Google docs, I still think that the easiest is to call thinks by their simple names ICANN Organization for the whole 3 parts ICANN Community for The community (SOs/ACs and the broader community) Empowered Community for the sole designator of ICANN ICANN staff for those payed to do the work of ICANN ICANN Board for the 16 members of the Board ICANN Corporation for the legal structure of ICANN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 4 mars 2017 à 10:00, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de> a écrit :
Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
wolfgang
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org im Auftrag von Nigel Roberts Gesendet: Sa 04.03.2017 07:15 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
Whilst I agree that these distinctions are needed, I would suggest that in British English the word 'organisation' would be more likely to be interpreteted as "the whole".
It's a goto word for reporters when something is not entirely clear.
If we mean staff, let's say 'Staff'.
On 03/03/17 21:20, Greg Shatan wrote:
Agree with Malcolm's points. I would suggest:
ICANN Inc. to refer to the corporation including both the staff and the Board. ICANN Organization to refer to the staff only (from the CEO down) but NOT the Board
Also agree that the Empowered Community is the entity. EC SOAC Appointees (or Representatives) could be used for the individuals serving as the "body" of the EC at any given time.
Also, it's possible that John Curran was asking where the IETF and its participants would fit (i.e., are they within any "sphere" defined by a particular term?). In that sense, similar to Avri, I would say that the IETF and its participants are members of the ICANN Wider Community, individually and as IETF.
I'm mulling over whether there is something in the relationship between ICANN and IETF that makes that a less than perfect fit, but it's eluding my grasp....
Greg
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:40 PM avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
The only goal is to find standard words for ICANN and its trinity of staff, board & community that can be used in the WS2 documents. So I am not sure that the IETF, which has no role needing description in the WS2 documents is relevant to the exercise.
I suppose the IETF, in at least some sense, as individuals and possibly even in the aggregate, would, if they were willing, be part of the ICANN wider community. Perhaps, though, the absence of a PSO is a flaw in the current implementation and a complicating factor in the answer.
avri
On 02-Mar-17 17:55, John Curran wrote:
On 2 Mar 2017, at 1:52 PM, avri doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org> <mailto:avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>>> wrote:
... We are sending this for discussion by the full group
Avri -
To aid in my understanding of the proposed terms, how would the IETF and its participants be characterized per these definitions?
Thanks! /John
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community. I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
It is good to work on terminology but it should be a common effort and reflecting real language use. ICANN-speak is already a strong "border" joining our community. Some ontology work can help. I would prefer organization - corporation is very much a term of California law not much used outside for a public purpose association. Best regards, Erich Schweighofer -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 01:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community. I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 07/03/17 07:28, Schweighofer Erich wrote:
... Some ontology work can help.
Although it referred to ontoGENY (and Häckel's oft-misquoted hypothesis remains discredited in that context), in the ICANN context ontoLOGY really does recapitulate phylogeny. Or as Santayana put it, if we do not remember the past, we shall be doomed to repeat it. Language is a tool. ICANN (and the wider tech community) has too often subscribed to the view of Humpty Dumpty to our disbenefit. (See below). To define the word "organisation" NOT to include the wider ICANN organisation (i.e. the staff and community) is to invite misunderstanding and confusion from outside agencies and outside media who will not understand that 'organisation' only means PART of the organisation. I have a long memory where ICANN is concerned. The VERY first DNSO Council meeting (today's GNSO and ccNSO together) of which I was a member, had an utterly Pythonesqye quarter-hour where the speakers of American English and British English suffered from entire and complete mutual incomprehensibility following one member;s suggestion of "tabling" a motion until ICANN Chairman, Esther Dyson, sitting on the floor under the stage intervened to translate each the other's confusion. " "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you /can/ make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
I think it makes sense to refer to the *legal entity* known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as the "Corporation" (which is a term of US law (not just California law) used for non-profit incorporated entities (including public interest entities, charities, foundations, membership organizations, etc.)). Where we are referring to something other than the that legal entity, we should not use "corporation." I believe that Goran is using Organization to refer to the "staff" (CEO on down, both employees and those who may be engaged on an "independent contractor" or "consultant" basis), but not to the Board (which is also part of the Corporation), but we may want to clarify. I agree with Stephen Deerhake that we need to be mindful of existing terms and use them as our basis. The corollary to that is to avoid using any currently-used terms differently than their current use -- so we should not contradict Goran's use of "organization" (once we confirm exactly how he uses it and what the "boundaries" of his definition are). Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Schweighofer Erich < erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at> wrote:
It is good to work on terminology but it should be a common effort and reflecting real language use. ICANN-speak is already a strong "border" joining our community. Some ontology work can help. I would prefer organization - corporation is very much a term of California law not much used outside for a public purpose association. Best regards, Erich Schweighofer
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 01:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community.
I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross- Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
My understanding of Goran's use of organization is as Greg described below. This is what Goran explained to me in Hyderabad. The Board is seen as separate. Perhaps we go for something super simple and understandable to describe all parts of ICANN as the "ICANN System" - encompasses Board, Staff, Volunteers, SO/AC's, EC, I*, etc. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman [cid:image005.jpg@01D270D2.1801CD20] From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 4:53 PM To: Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity I think it makes sense to refer to the legal entity known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as the "Corporation" (which is a term of US law (not just California law) used for non-profit incorporated entities (including public interest entities, charities, foundations, membership organizations, etc.)). Where we are referring to something other than the that legal entity, we should not use "corporation." I believe that Goran is using Organization to refer to the "staff" (CEO on down, both employees and those who may be engaged on an "independent contractor" or "consultant" basis), but not to the Board (which is also part of the Corporation), but we may want to clarify. I agree with Stephen Deerhake that we need to be mindful of existing terms and use them as our basis. The corollary to that is to avoid using any currently-used terms differently than their current use -- so we should not contradict Goran's use of "organization" (once we confirm exactly how he uses it and what the "boundaries" of his definition are). Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at<mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>> wrote: It is good to work on terminology but it should be a common effort and reflecting real language use. ICANN-speak is already a strong "border" joining our community. Some ontology work can help. I would prefer organization - corporation is very much a term of California law not much used outside for a public purpose association. Best regards, Erich Schweighofer -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 01:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community. I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________
Hi, My normal inclination would have been to use Organization to mean all of us in the multistakeholder trinity (board, community and staff) as many have argued. But since Goran was seemingly set on his usage, I am worried about us building in a permanent confusion/ambiguity. Thus my search for another way to refer to it. It is also why I included Staff as an aka for ICANN Organization, trying to keep our standard usage as well as allow for the CEO's usage. Trying to be pragmatic and not ideological about this. avri On 07-Mar-17 10:53, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think it makes sense to refer to the *legal entity* known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as the "Corporation" (which is a term of US law (not just California law) used for non-profit incorporated entities (including public interest entities, charities, foundations, membership organizations, etc.)).
Where we are referring to something other than the that legal entity, we should not use "corporation."
I believe that Goran is using Organization to refer to the "staff" (CEO on down, both employees and those who may be engaged on an "independent contractor" or "consultant" basis), but not to the Board (which is also part of the Corporation), but we may want to clarify.
I agree with Stephen Deerhake that we need to be mindful of existing terms and use them as our basis. The corollary to that is to avoid using any currently-used terms differently than their current use -- so we should not contradict Goran's use of "organization" (once we confirm exactly how he uses it and what the "boundaries" of his definition are).
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at <mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>> wrote:
It is good to work on terminology but it should be a common effort and reflecting real language use. ICANN-speak is already a strong "border" joining our community. Some ontology work can help. I would prefer organization - corporation is very much a term of California law not much used outside for a public purpose association. Best regards, Erich Schweighofer
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 01:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
>> Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
>> Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community.
I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I don't care about ideology one way or t'other. I care about comprehension and communication. On 07/03/17 17:17, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
My normal inclination would have been to use Organization to mean all of us in the multistakeholder trinity (board, community and staff) as many have argued. But since Goran was seemingly set on his usage, I am worried about us building in a permanent confusion/ambiguity. Thus my search for another way to refer to it. It is also why I included Staff as an aka for ICANN Organization, trying to keep our standard usage as well as allow for the CEO's usage.
Trying to be pragmatic and not ideological about this.
avri
On 07-Mar-17 10:53, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think it makes sense to refer to the *legal entity* known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as the "Corporation" (which is a term of US law (not just California law) used for non-profit incorporated entities (including public interest entities, charities, foundations, membership organizations, etc.)).
Where we are referring to something other than the that legal entity, we should not use "corporation."
I believe that Goran is using Organization to refer to the "staff" (CEO on down, both employees and those who may be engaged on an "independent contractor" or "consultant" basis), but not to the Board (which is also part of the Corporation), but we may want to clarify.
I agree with Stephen Deerhake that we need to be mindful of existing terms and use them as our basis. The corollary to that is to avoid using any currently-used terms differently than their current use -- so we should not contradict Goran's use of "organization" (once we confirm exactly how he uses it and what the "boundaries" of his definition are).
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at <mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>> wrote:
It is good to work on terminology but it should be a common effort and reflecting real language use. ICANN-speak is already a strong "border" joining our community. Some ontology work can help. I would prefer organization - corporation is very much a term of California law not much used outside for a public purpose association. Best regards, Erich Schweighofer
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 01:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
>> Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
>> Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community.
I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agree that Staff should be an a/k/a for Organization a la Goran. The "whole ball of wax" has often been called (informally) the "ICANN ecosystem." Lori has proposed "ICANN System." I tend to prefer Ecosystem, even though there's nothing "ecological" about it. I note that dictionaries are now defining "ecological" as "(in general use) a complex network or interconnected system." Also, "system" sounds a bit industrial or at least more regularized and regulated, while "ecosystem" implies a certain organic aspect, which feels more appropriate to me in this instance. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I don't care about ideology one way or t'other.
I care about comprehension and communication.
On 07/03/17 17:17, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
My normal inclination would have been to use Organization to mean all of us in the multistakeholder trinity (board, community and staff) as many have argued. But since Goran was seemingly set on his usage, I am worried about us building in a permanent confusion/ambiguity. Thus my search for another way to refer to it. It is also why I included Staff as an aka for ICANN Organization, trying to keep our standard usage as well as allow for the CEO's usage.
Trying to be pragmatic and not ideological about this.
avri
On 07-Mar-17 10:53, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think it makes sense to refer to the *legal entity* known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as the "Corporation" (which is a term of US law (not just California law) used for non-profit incorporated entities (including public interest entities, charities, foundations, membership organizations, etc.)).
Where we are referring to something other than the that legal entity, we should not use "corporation."
I believe that Goran is using Organization to refer to the "staff" (CEO on down, both employees and those who may be engaged on an "independent contractor" or "consultant" basis), but not to the Board (which is also part of the Corporation), but we may want to clarify.
I agree with Stephen Deerhake that we need to be mindful of existing terms and use them as our basis. The corollary to that is to avoid using any currently-used terms differently than their current use -- so we should not contradict Goran's use of "organization" (once we confirm exactly how he uses it and what the "boundaries" of his definition are).
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at <mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>> wrote:
It is good to work on terminology but it should be a common effort and reflecting real language use. ICANN-speak is already a strong "border" joining our community. Some ontology work can help. I would prefer organization - corporation is very much a term of California law not much used outside for a public purpose association. Best regards, Erich Schweighofer
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 01:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
>> Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
>> Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community.
I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross- community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross- community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, Thanks for your comments . I am not following any individual . If someone ,for ease of referred referred to ICANN as organisation ( staff ,CEO .... and not Board. tHIS IS NOT CORRECT If we include Board we may call all those as organization However, there is IACNN system 2017-03-07 19:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Agree that Staff should be an a/k/a for Organization a la Goran.
The "whole ball of wax" has often been called (informally) the "ICANN ecosystem." Lori has proposed "ICANN System." I tend to prefer Ecosystem, even though there's nothing "ecological" about it. I note that dictionaries are now defining "ecological" as "(in general use) a complex network or interconnected system." Also, "system" sounds a bit industrial or at least more regularized and regulated, while "ecosystem" implies a certain organic aspect, which feels more appropriate to me in this instance.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I don't care about ideology one way or t'other.
I care about comprehension and communication.
On 07/03/17 17:17, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
My normal inclination would have been to use Organization to mean all of us in the multistakeholder trinity (board, community and staff) as many have argued. But since Goran was seemingly set on his usage, I am worried about us building in a permanent confusion/ambiguity. Thus my search for another way to refer to it. It is also why I included Staff as an aka for ICANN Organization, trying to keep our standard usage as well as allow for the CEO's usage.
Trying to be pragmatic and not ideological about this.
avri
On 07-Mar-17 10:53, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think it makes sense to refer to the *legal entity* known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as the "Corporation" (which is a term of US law (not just California law) used for non-profit incorporated entities (including public interest entities, charities, foundations, membership organizations, etc.)).
Where we are referring to something other than the that legal entity, we should not use "corporation."
I believe that Goran is using Organization to refer to the "staff" (CEO on down, both employees and those who may be engaged on an "independent contractor" or "consultant" basis), but not to the Board (which is also part of the Corporation), but we may want to clarify.
I agree with Stephen Deerhake that we need to be mindful of existing terms and use them as our basis. The corollary to that is to avoid using any currently-used terms differently than their current use -- so we should not contradict Goran's use of "organization" (once we confirm exactly how he uses it and what the "boundaries" of his definition are).
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at <mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>> wrote:
It is good to work on terminology but it should be a common effort and reflecting real language use. ICANN-speak is already a strong "border" joining our community. Some ontology work can help. I would prefer organization - corporation is very much a term of California law not much used outside for a public purpose association. Best regards, Erich Schweighofer
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 01:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
>> Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
>> Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community.
I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-c ommunity <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross- community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-c ommunity <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross- community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, Thanks for your comments . I am not following any individual . If someone ,for ease of referred referred to ICANN as organisation ( staff ,CEO .... and not Board. That seems inappropriate since such entity staff plus CEO is referred as Administration or Secretariat If we include Board we may call all those as organization However, there is No IACNN system due to the fact that " system is a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole. such as "the state railway system" or " telecommunication system " " satellite system " We need to be careful . Regards Kavouss 2017-03-07 19:22 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>:
Dear All, Thanks for your comments . I am not following any individual . If someone ,for ease of referred referred to ICANN as organisation ( staff ,CEO .... and not Board. tHIS IS NOT CORRECT
If we include Board we may call all those as organization However, there is IACNN system
2017-03-07 19:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:
Agree that Staff should be an a/k/a for Organization a la Goran.
The "whole ball of wax" has often been called (informally) the "ICANN ecosystem." Lori has proposed "ICANN System." I tend to prefer Ecosystem, even though there's nothing "ecological" about it. I note that dictionaries are now defining "ecological" as "(in general use) a complex network or interconnected system." Also, "system" sounds a bit industrial or at least more regularized and regulated, while "ecosystem" implies a certain organic aspect, which feels more appropriate to me in this instance.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
I don't care about ideology one way or t'other.
I care about comprehension and communication.
On 07/03/17 17:17, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
My normal inclination would have been to use Organization to mean all of us in the multistakeholder trinity (board, community and staff) as many have argued. But since Goran was seemingly set on his usage, I am worried about us building in a permanent confusion/ambiguity. Thus my search for another way to refer to it. It is also why I included Staff as an aka for ICANN Organization, trying to keep our standard usage as well as allow for the CEO's usage.
Trying to be pragmatic and not ideological about this.
avri
On 07-Mar-17 10:53, Greg Shatan wrote:
I think it makes sense to refer to the *legal entity* known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as the "Corporation" (which is a term of US law (not just California law) used for non-profit incorporated entities (including public interest entities, charities, foundations, membership organizations, etc.)).
Where we are referring to something other than the that legal entity, we should not use "corporation."
I believe that Goran is using Organization to refer to the "staff" (CEO on down, both employees and those who may be engaged on an "independent contractor" or "consultant" basis), but not to the Board (which is also part of the Corporation), but we may want to clarify.
I agree with Stephen Deerhake that we need to be mindful of existing terms and use them as our basis. The corollary to that is to avoid using any currently-used terms differently than their current use -- so we should not contradict Goran's use of "organization" (once we confirm exactly how he uses it and what the "boundaries" of his definition are).
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at <mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>> wrote:
It is good to work on terminology but it should be a common effort and reflecting real language use. ICANN-speak is already a strong "border" joining our community. Some ontology work can help. I would prefer organization - corporation is very much a term of California law not much used outside for a public purpose association. Best regards, Erich Schweighofer
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 01:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity
>> Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it.
>> Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames.
Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community.
I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-c ommunity <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross- community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-c ommunity <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross- community>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No Niklas Luhman for Kavouss Arasteh? System or ecosystem best describe what the hybrid of ICANN and related … is now. Best, Erich Schweighofer Von: Kavouss Arasteh<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. März 2017 19:28 An: Greg Shatan<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity Dear All, Thanks for your comments . I am not following any individual . If someone ,for ease of referred referred to ICANN as organisation ( staff ,CEO .... and not Board. That seems inappropriate since such entity staff plus CEO is referred as Administration or Secretariat If we include Board we may call all those as organization However, there is No IACNN system due to the fact that " system is a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole. such as "the state railway system" or " telecommunication system " " satellite system " We need to be careful . Regards Kavouss 2017-03-07 19:22 GMT+01:00 Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>>: Dear All, Thanks for your comments . I am not following any individual . If someone ,for ease of referred referred to ICANN as organisation ( staff ,CEO .... and not Board. tHIS IS NOT CORRECT If we include Board we may call all those as organization However, there is IACNN system 2017-03-07 19:04 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>: Agree that Staff should be an a/k/a for Organization a la Goran. The "whole ball of wax" has often been called (informally) the "ICANN ecosystem." Lori has proposed "ICANN System." I tend to prefer Ecosystem, even though there's nothing "ecological" about it. I note that dictionaries are now defining "ecological" as "(in general use) a complex network or interconnected system." Also, "system" sounds a bit industrial or at least more regularized and regulated, while "ecosystem" implies a certain organic aspect, which feels more appropriate to me in this instance. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: I don't care about ideology one way or t'other. I care about comprehension and communication. On 07/03/17 17:17, avri doria wrote: Hi, My normal inclination would have been to use Organization to mean all of us in the multistakeholder trinity (board, community and staff) as many have argued. But since Goran was seemingly set on his usage, I am worried about us building in a permanent confusion/ambiguity. Thus my search for another way to refer to it. It is also why I included Staff as an aka for ICANN Organization, trying to keep our standard usage as well as allow for the CEO's usage. Trying to be pragmatic and not ideological about this. avri On 07-Mar-17 10:53, Greg Shatan wrote: I think it makes sense to refer to the *legal entity* known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as the "Corporation" (which is a term of US law (not just California law) used for non-profit incorporated entities (including public interest entities, charities, foundations, membership organizations, etc.)). Where we are referring to something other than the that legal entity, we should not use "corporation." I believe that Goran is using Organization to refer to the "staff" (CEO on down, both employees and those who may be engaged on an "independent contractor" or "consultant" basis), but not to the Board (which is also part of the Corporation), but we may want to clarify. I agree with Stephen Deerhake that we need to be mindful of existing terms and use them as our basis. The corollary to that is to avoid using any currently-used terms differently than their current use -- so we should not contradict Goran's use of "organization" (once we confirm exactly how he uses it and what the "boundaries" of his definition are). Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428<tel:917-816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428<tel:646-845-9428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Schweighofer Erich <erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at<mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at> <mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at<mailto:erich.schweighofer@univie.ac.at>>> wrote: It is good to work on terminology but it should be a common effort and reflecting real language use. ICANN-speak is already a strong "border" joining our community. Some ontology work can help. I would prefer organization - corporation is very much a term of California law not much used outside for a public purpose association. Best regards, Erich Schweighofer -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>>] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 01:29 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity >> Make it as simple as possible so that ICANN outsiders will understand it. >> Thanks to the 1000+ acronyms ICANN has created enough confusion not only among the "people in the street" who arer using domainnames but also among Internet policy makers who are not ICANN insiders but have to deal with implications conming fro domainnames. Yes - where possible I prefer we use terminology in common use in the wider community. I would generally think that "organization" or "corporation" refers to Board, staff, and contractors. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 07-Mar-17 13:04, Greg Shatan wrote:
I tend to prefer Ecosystem, even though there's nothing "ecological" about it.
the very reason i hate that usage. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The ICANN Plenum? The ICANN Trinity? The ICANN Triangle? ICANN in full? Tout-ICANN? The ICANN oloméleia? The ICANN Universe? The ICANN multiverse? The ICANN Organism? Total ICANN? ICANN in Toto? ICANN complete? ICANN complet? The ICANN complex? ICANN Inclusive? ICANN shebang? ICANN aggregate? The ICANN Megillah? The ICANN Web? *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:47 AM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
On 07-Mar-17 13:04, Greg Shatan wrote:
I tend to prefer Ecosystem, even though there's nothing "ecological" about it.
the very reason i hate that usage. avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
The term Internet ecosystem is here to stay. In contemporary use the term ecosystem has a wider meaning that just the ecological. It has the specific use as"a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment" But it has a general use as "a complex network or interconnected system", e.g. "Silicon Valley's entrepreneurial ecosystem" The prefix "eco" has Greek and Latin roots in "Household" or "house" and is the source of the name for my profession "Economist". Sam (aka: Pedantic Economist :-) ) On 3/8/2017 12:47 AM, avri doria wrote:
On 07-Mar-17 13:04, Greg Shatan wrote:
I tend to prefer Ecosystem, even though there's nothing "ecological" about it. the very reason i hate that usage. avri
On 02/03/2017 18:52, avri doria wrote:
While there were a few terms we could not come to agreement on, we have produced the enclosed draft terminology. It includes alternatives in the places where we disagreed.
Avri, Thank you for a useful piece of work, most of which seems to me to be easily agreeable. I do see a problem with your definition of ICANN Empowered Community. You suggest: "ICANN Empowered Community aka ICANN EC : The representatives of the ICANN Corporation assigned by the various SOAC to the Empowered Community function" The Bylaws state (Article 6.1): "(a) The Empowered Community ("EC") shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO (as defined in Section 10.1), the GNSO (as defined in Section 11.1), the ALAC (as defined in Section 12.2(d)(i)) and the GAC (each a "Decisional Participant" or "associate," and collectively, the "Decisional Participants") [...]" These are inconsistent. The Bylaws define the Empowered Community as a composite legal entity, that is comprised of the named SOACs. You give that name to "representatives", i.e. individuals. I don't think there is even such a thing as "representatives" of the SOACs in the Empowered Community process, but even if there were, there is a distinction between individuals and the entity. I don't think we should encourage people to use the term Empowered Community in a manner inconsistent with the formal Bylaws definition; this will only generate more of the confusion your paper seeks to resolve. Kind Regards, Malcolm -- 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 Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
On 3 Mar 2017 21:30, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote: On 02/03/2017 18:52, avri doria wrote:
While there were a few terms we could not come to agreement on, we have produced the enclosed draft terminology. It includes alternatives in the places where we disagreed.
I don't think there is even such a thing as "representatives" of the SOACs in the Empowered Community process, but even if there were, there is a distinction between individuals and the entity. SO: I think this was attempting to describe what the EC is in practice because they are indeed representatives of the respective SO/AC in the room(the entity) I don't think we should encourage people to use the term Empowered Community in a manner inconsistent with the formal Bylaws definition; this will only generate more of the confusion your paper seeks to resolve. SO: I will take an exception to this as I think interpreting legal text (bylaw) in a manner that makes easy understanding without losing the legal interpretation would achieve the intent of this process as well. Regards Kind Regards, Malcolm -- 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 Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agree with Malcolm about the Empowered Community. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 3 mars 2017 à 15:30, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> a écrit :
On 02/03/2017 18:52, avri doria wrote:
While there were a few terms we could not come to agreement on, we have produced the enclosed draft terminology. It includes alternatives in the places where we disagreed.
Avri,
Thank you for a useful piece of work, most of which seems to me to be easily agreeable.
I do see a problem with your definition of ICANN Empowered Community.
You suggest: "ICANN Empowered Community aka ICANN EC : The representatives of the ICANN Corporation assigned by the various SOAC to the Empowered Community function"
The Bylaws state (Article 6.1): "(a) The Empowered Community ("EC") shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO (as defined in Section 10.1), the GNSO (as defined in Section 11.1), the ALAC (as defined in Section 12.2(d)(i)) and the GAC (each a "Decisional Participant" or "associate," and collectively, the "Decisional Participants") [...]"
These are inconsistent.
The Bylaws define the Empowered Community as a composite legal entity, that is comprised of the named SOACs. You give that name to "representatives", i.e. individuals.
I don't think there is even such a thing as "representatives" of the SOACs in the Empowered Community process, but even if there were, there is a distinction between individuals and the entity.
I don't think we should encourage people to use the term Empowered Community in a manner inconsistent with the formal Bylaws definition; this will only generate more of the confusion your paper seeks to resolve.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm
-- 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 Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 02/03/2017 18:52, avri doria wrote:
We are sending this for discussion by the full group and, if it is acceptable in general, for help in deciding between the alternatives numbered A1/A2 & B1/B2.
To help unpick this, I think we need to know whether your Option A1 & A2 are intended to include the Board. The following thought may or may not relate to that question. There is in law the concept of something being done by "ICANN Inc". This would include anything done under the authority of the Board. It would therefore include the Board's own decisions, but also anything done by the management, staff or any agent or "servant of the company" (excuse my Britishism!) that they were authorised to do on the company's behalf. It would count as authorised whether the person acting were specifically authorised to do that thing by higher authority, or if it fell within the scope of things for which authority to act had been delegated to the actor. So even such a simple thing as a member of staff publishing a statement on a web page on ICANN's web site about the date of an upcoming meeting would be included in the set of things that were "done by ICANN, Inc.". Things done by mere members of ICANN's multi-stakeholder community, such as myself, do not intrinsically count as being done by ICANN, Inc. The question of whether something done by a SOAC or a component of a SOAC (such as a GNSO constituency) counts as being done by ICANN is potentially legally complex and context-specific, but to a first approximation I think the answer is that such things do not generally count as done by ICANN Inc. Where does this fit within your options? Does ICANN Inc, as described above, map perfectly to one of them, or is it another category? Malcolm. -- 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 Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
I apologise for coming in somewhat late on this thread... I strongly suggest that before this group develops yet another vocabulary, that it carefully study the new Bylaws, and in particular, Annex D, and adopt the vocabulary which has been developed in both the Bylaws and Annex D as its basis going forward, augmenting it as necessary, but not re-inventing what's already in place, which is considerable. Best Regards, Stephen Deerhake AS Domain Registry GDNS, LLC sdeerhake@nic.as sdeerhake@gdns.net -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 1:52 PM To: CCWG Accountability <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Terminology for the ICANN trinity hi, Sébastien and I [were] volunteered for the task of trying to clarify the words to be used in WS2 of documents when referring to ICANN, its workers, its board, and its community. While there were a few terms we could not come to agreement on, we have produced the enclosed draft terminology. It includes alternatives in the places where we disagreed. The doc can be found at: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JadPh5TJQ_-_LNfVu3EicZct1JMKk__b03W43IsF...> As always the document is open for suggestions and comments We are sending this for discussion by the full group and, if it is acceptable in general, for help in deciding between the alternatives numbered A1/A2 & B1/B2. thanks Avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (17)
-
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" -
avri doria -
avri doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Greg Shatan -
John Curran -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lori Schulman -
Malcolm Hutty -
Nigel Roberts -
Sam Lanfranco -
Schweighofer Erich -
Seun Ojedeji -
Stephen Deerhake -
Steve Crocker -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Tijani BEN JEMAA