Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
CCWG Members – The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.” This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely: ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process? STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order. The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include: Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal IAB Proposal ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers” ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries” ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”) ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers” ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.” As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion. Becky J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
Does 'support' translate to 'regulate'?? On 10/30/2015 09:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members –
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of /coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including //Protocol port and parameter numbers/. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.”
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?____
__ __
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order. __
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members.I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal.I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are.Most of the changes reflect moving the language around.The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”
ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers”
ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.”
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Becky Yes , at the recent ICG meeting they raised the concerns and I informed the meeting that if they write to CCWG we will reconsider the matter and rake a decision , as appropriate Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:04, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
CCWG Members –
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.”
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order. The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal IAB Proposal ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers” ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries” ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”) ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers” ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.”
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
It means you may not have read their submission to the second CCWG PC http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00018.h... Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 31 Oct 2015 01:40, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Becky Yes , at the recent ICG meeting they raised the concerns and I informed the meeting that if they write to CCWG we will reconsider the matter and rake a decision , as appropriate Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:04, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
CCWG Members –
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of *coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including **Protocol port and parameter numbers*. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.”
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the
Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”
ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers”
ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.”
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>
_______________________________________________ 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
I did indeed seun. You may have missed our earlier discussion Becky Burr Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 18:42, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: It means you may not have read their submission to the second CCWG PC http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/msg00018.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_comments-2Dccwg-2Daccountability-2D03aug15_msg00018.html&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=uptnlXCSybAqTixvcTcp47xcnEiEw8K4GYSNtkAy3_Q&s=5aZAaRrnaywZzKKUmiVcn38GYSS4a2h2TLoXKrVbOso&e=> Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 31 Oct 2015 01:40, "Kavouss Arasteh" <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Becky Yes , at the recent ICG meeting they raised the concerns and I informed the meeting that if they write to CCWG we will reconsider the matter and rake a decision , as appropriate Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:04, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> wrote: CCWG Members – The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.” This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely: ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process? STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order. The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include: Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal IAB Proposal ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers” ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries” ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”) ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”) ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers” ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.” As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion. Becky J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=uptnlXCSybAqTixvcTcp47xcnEiEw8K4GYSNtkAy3_Q&s=hZyHhvgJ_ljnhFBVYR-grVktciOuaFPmdhF9ErSPG_Y&e=> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=uptnlXCSybAqTixvcTcp47xcnEiEw8K4GYSNtkAy3_Q&s=hZyHhvgJ_ljnhFBVYR-grVktciOuaFPmdhF9ErSPG_Y&e=>
Becky and CCWG members - Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers.” Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so. - Lyman and Julie On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members –
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.”
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”
ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers”
ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.”
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, As a Member of ICG, I carefully examined the concerns expressed by IAB and believe that the request needs to be favourably considered and acted upon Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2015, at 09:56, Lyman Chapin <lyman@interisle.net> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers.” Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members –
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.”
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”
ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers”
ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.”
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with Kavouss and note we had received comments on this matter during the public comment periods, so it is a request that has been pending for some time. I'm glad we are able to address the issue now. Thanks, Robin On Oct 31, 2015, at 3:53 AM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All, As a Member of ICG, I carefully examined the concerns expressed by IAB and believe that the request needs to be favourably considered and acted upon Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2015, at 09:56, Lyman Chapin <lyman@interisle.net> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers.” Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members –
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.”
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”
ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers”
ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.”
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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, In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now. best, Roelof On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of lyman@interisle.net> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.²
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet registries²
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers²
ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Would have added a +1 if mission was entirely made out of scope for the CCWG, but that is not the case as the IAB request is just one of the proposed edits of the mission statement. That said, I think the IAB's recommendation particularly have something to do with the transition since for the first time there will be a clearer process for any of the OCs to opt out of ICANN individually, It's therefore important the mission reflects that. I have some sympathy for Paul's concern on the word "support" and I think a better phrasing may be in order. That said, such phrasing should not give the impression that there is(or can be) really a central kill switch/control of the Internet as that is the impression the current mission may have implied politically. Cheers! Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Nov 2015 05:37, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear all,
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
best,
Roelof
On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of lyman@interisle.net> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.²
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet registries²
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers²
ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
Instead of support, would 'promote' be closer to what a multistakeholder community expects of an ICANN? RD On Oct 31, 2015 5:56 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Would have added a +1 if mission was entirely made out of scope for the CCWG, but that is not the case as the IAB request is just one of the proposed edits of the mission statement. That said, I think the IAB's recommendation particularly have something to do with the transition since for the first time there will be a clearer process for any of the OCs to opt out of ICANN individually, It's therefore important the mission reflects that.
I have some sympathy for Paul's concern on the word "support" and I think a better phrasing may be in order. That said, such phrasing should not give the impression that there is(or can be) really a central kill switch/control of the Internet as that is the impression the current mission may have implied politically.
Cheers!
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 1 Nov 2015 05:37, "Roelof Meijer" <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> wrote:
Dear all,
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
best,
Roelof
On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of lyman@interisle.net> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.²
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet registries²
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers²
ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language.I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community. Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion. And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process. As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views Marilyn Cade
From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl To: lyman@interisle.net; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 CC: IAB@Iab.org; ssac@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Dear all,
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
best,
Roelof
On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of lyman@interisle.net> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.²
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet registries²
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers²
ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
+1. I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO. (At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a 'coup' by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.) There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where? CW On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl To: lyman@interisle.net; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 CC: IAB@Iab.org; ssac@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Dear all,
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
best,
Roelof
On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of lyman@interisle.net> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.²
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet registries²
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers²
ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearancewas without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility. The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grewfrom 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance ofelected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewherefrom the outside spaces around the Stakeholders. When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned,and experienced from the technical community... we have lost that particular role... Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl; lyman@interisle.net; becky.burr@neustar.biz; iab@iab.org; ssac@icann.org; marilynscade@hotmail.com To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org +1. I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO. (At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a 'coup' by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.) There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where? CW On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language.I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community. Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion. And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process. As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views Marilyn Cade
From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl To: lyman@interisle.net; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 CC: IAB@Iab.org; ssac@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Dear all,
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
best,
Roelof
On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of lyman@interisle.net> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.²
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet registries²
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers²
ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Colleagues,
From three operational communities, two are currently well represented in the ICANN
Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO, Numbers by ASO Protocol and technical parameters by No one, It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to the process but would it be possible to seek from them whether in their view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by them in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission .Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple For your kind consideration Kavouss 2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>:
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility.
The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, and experienced from the technical community...
we have lost that particular role...
------------------------------ Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl; lyman@interisle.net; becky.burr@neustar.biz; iab@iab.org; ssac@icann.org; marilynscade@hotmail.com To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
+1.
I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO.
(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a *'coup'* by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)
There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
CW
On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl To: lyman@interisle.net; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 CC: IAB@Iab.org; ssac@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Dear all,
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
best,
Roelof
On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Lyman Chapin" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of lyman@interisle.net> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.²
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet registries²
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers²
ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
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
But, do they want that? el On 2015-11-01 23:24 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
From three operational communities, two are currently well represented in the ICANN
Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO,
Numbers by ASO
Protocol and technical parameters by No one,
It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to the process but would it be possible to seek from them whether in their view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by them in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission .Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple
For your kind consideration
Kavouss
2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>:
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility.
The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, and experienced from the technical community...
we have lost that particular role...
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>; lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>; iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
+1.
I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO.
(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)
There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
CW
On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
> From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> > To: lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 > CC: IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement > > Dear all, > > In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition > nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. > We should not deal with this. > Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and > thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that > something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now. > > best, > > Roelof > > > > > On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on > behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>> wrote: > > >Becky and CCWG members - > > > >Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore > >by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by > >the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more > >important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring > >different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current > >mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, > >ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s > >system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the > >alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed > >by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious > >that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands > >in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to > >develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend > >that it do so. > > > >- Lyman and Julie > > > >On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: > > > >> CCWG Members > >> > >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, > >>which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation > >>and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port > >>and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments > >>they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 > >>discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the > >>Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server > >>community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own > >>description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., > >>names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. > >> > >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains > >>very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on > >>behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is > >>misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at > >>least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and > >>arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does > >>not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of > >>unique identifiers.² > >> > >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve > >>Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of > >>its role in this area more precisely: > >> > >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the > >>Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text > >>that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the > >>global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not > >>precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol > >>supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether > >>the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open > >>anyway in the CCWG process? > >> > >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank > >>you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between > >>some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the > >>words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- > >>some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I > >>think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short > >>period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. > >>And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the > >>communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. > >>But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things > >>of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're > >>going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a > >>lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, > >>you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the > >>nuances is well in order. > >> > >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns > >>of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the > >>Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the > >>IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more > >>dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the > >>language around. The substantive changes include: > >> > >> > >> > >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal > >> > >> > >> IAB Proposal > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global > >>Internet¹s system of unique identifiers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet > >>registries² > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names > >>(forming a system referred to as ³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root > >>zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and > >>parameter numbers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core > >>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.² > >> > >> > >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the > >>strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to > >>raise this issue for discussion. > >> > >> Becky > >> > >> J. Beckwith Burr > >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer > >> > >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 > >>October.pdf>_______________________________________________ > >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, I am attending the IETF now, and I must say picked up no clue that they are even thinking about this. Lots of people come up to me and talk about ICANN and what we are up to. PSO was on no ones lips. What I do pick up is that they are hoping we make an end of it in real time and not keep adding issues to be dealt with before things can move on. the ones that knew of the Dublin compromises where rather pleased and worried about the impression coming out of CCWG that some of those might be unraveling with people arguing for their old positions. I will keep listening for the rest of the week and if hear anyone worrying about a resurgence of the PSO, will be sure to let the list know. Just saying. avri On 02-Nov-15 06:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
But,
do they want that?
el
On 2015-11-01 23:24 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
From three operational communities, two are currently well represented in the ICANN
Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO,
Numbers by ASO
Protocol and technical parameters by No one,
It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to the process but would it be possible to seek from them whether in their view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by them in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission .Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple
For your kind consideration
Kavouss
2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>:
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility.
The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, and experienced from the technical community...
we have lost that particular role...
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>; lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>; iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
+1.
I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO.
(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)
There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
CW
On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
> From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> > To: lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 > CC: IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement > > Dear all, > > In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition > nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. > We should not deal with this. > Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and > thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that > something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now. > > best, > > Roelof > > > > > On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on > behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>> wrote: > > >Becky and CCWG members - > > > >Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore > >by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by > >the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more > >important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring > >different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current > >mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, > >ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s > >system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the > >alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed > >by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious > >that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands > >in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to > >develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend > >that it do so. > > > >- Lyman and Julie > > > >On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: > > > >> CCWG Members > >> > >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, > >>which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation > >>and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port > >>and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments > >>they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 > >>discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the > >>Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server > >>community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own > >>description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., > >>names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. > >> > >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains > >>very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on > >>behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is > >>misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at > >>least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and > >>arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does > >>not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of > >>unique identifiers.² > >> > >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve > >>Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of > >>its role in this area more precisely: > >> > >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the > >>Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text > >>that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the > >>global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not > >>precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol > >>supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether > >>the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open > >>anyway in the CCWG process? > >> > >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank > >>you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between > >>some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the > >>words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- > >>some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I > >>think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short > >>period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. > >>And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the > >>communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. > >>But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things > >>of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're > >>going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a > >>lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, > >>you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the > >>nuances is well in order. > >> > >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns > >>of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the > >>Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the > >>IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more > >>dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the > >>language around. The substantive changes include: > >> > >> > >> > >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal > >> > >> > >> IAB Proposal > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global > >>Internet¹s system of unique identifiers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet > >>registries² > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names > >>(forming a system referred to as ³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root > >>zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and > >>parameter numbers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core > >>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.² > >> > >> > >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the > >>strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to > >>raise this issue for discussion. > >> > >> Becky > >> > >> J. Beckwith Burr > >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer > >> > >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 > >>October.pdf>_______________________________________________ > >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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 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 can understand the IAB's concerns, viewed from the perspective of those who promulgate protocols. However, I have significant concerns, on several levels, about the timing and substance of the proposals, and the CCWG's remit and capacity to deal with this request at this time. This is no simple request. Depending on how it is handled, it could be seen to significantly change (whether expanding or contracting) ICANN's mission. Also, we are not beginning at the beginning. The "Mission" in the Bylaws cannot be considered without considering an even more foundational document, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation -- the document which creates (in a legal sense) ICANN. The Bylaws are a subsidiary document, and need to be consistent with the Articles. The Bylaws may be "laws," but the Articles are the "Constitution." The relevant section of the Articles (Section 3) reads: the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system (" DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv). We (and our counsel and ICANN's counsel) would need to consider if the Articles accurately reflect ICANN's mission and if they don't, how they should be changed. We would all need to consider how any proposed change in the Bylaws would need to be reflected by changing the Articles (and vice versa). In other words, we shouldn't even be talking about the Bylaws until we have finished talking about the Articles. Turning to the proposal at hand: The most critical change proposed by the IAB is to replace the base definition of ICANN's mission early in the chapeau text. This is the most fundamental statement of ICANN's mission in these Bylaws; everything else is just clarification. Where it now says that ICANN's mission is to "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers," the IAB's proposal would change this to state that ICANN's mission is to "support, at the overall level, core Internet registries." This is a radical shift. Maybe unintentionally so, but radical nonetheless. Changing ICANN's focus from "coordinating" the Internet's "unique identifiers" to "supporting" core Internet "registries" would be a seismic shift. Specifically this looks like a great diminishment of ICANN's responsibility (from "coordinating" to "supporting") and scope (from "unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries"). At one level, this is a "legal drafting" assignment. But legal drafting is a later stage in any process. What has to come first is a definition of what it is we are trying to say -- and what it is we are trying to change. Once we can answer that question accurately, the lawyers can draft language to make sure that our intentions are accurately carried out and to avoid any unintended consequences or interpretations. At this point in our process, I'm downright terrified at embarking on a revision of ICANN's fundamental mission. This should not be done in a rush -- every bit of what ICANN can do (and can't do) flows from here. Any such change needs to be carefully and deeply considered. Finally, with regard to the transition, I have to say that this is a "nice to have" (maybe) but not a "need to have." I would resist latching onto the transition and accountability process, and our working group, to consider and implement this change. This may seem like the "easiest" opportunity to get this change looked at, but that doesn't make it right. Greg On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I am attending the IETF now, and I must say picked up no clue that they are even thinking about this. Lots of people come up to me and talk about ICANN and what we are up to. PSO was on no ones lips.
What I do pick up is that they are hoping we make an end of it in real time and not keep adding issues to be dealt with before things can move on. the ones that knew of the Dublin compromises where rather pleased and worried about the impression coming out of CCWG that some of those might be unraveling with people arguing for their old positions.
I will keep listening for the rest of the week and if hear anyone worrying about a resurgence of the PSO, will be sure to let the list know.
Just saying.
avri
On 02-Nov-15 06:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
But,
do they want that?
el
On 2015-11-01 23:24 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
From three operational communities, two are currently well represented in the ICANN
Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO,
Numbers by ASO
Protocol and technical parameters by No one,
It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to the process but would it be possible to seek from them whether in their view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by them in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission .Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple
For your kind consideration
Kavouss
2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>:
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility.
The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, and experienced from the technical community...
we have lost that particular role...
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>; lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>; iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
+1.
I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the
PSO.
(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)
There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
CW
On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
> From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> > To: lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 > CC: IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement > > Dear all, > > In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition > nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. > We should not deal with this. > Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and > thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that > something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is
now.
> > best, > > Roelof > > > > > On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on > behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net
wrote: > > >Becky and CCWG members - > > > >Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore > >by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by > >the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more > >important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring > >different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current > >mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, > >ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s > >system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the > >alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed > >by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious > >that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands > >in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to > >develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend > >that it do so. > > > >- Lyman and Julie > > > >On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: > > > >> CCWG Members > >> > >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, > >>which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation > >>and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port > >>and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments > >>they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 > >>discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the > >>Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root
Server
> >>community, and the port/parameter community to provide
their own
> >>description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., > >>names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. > >> > >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains > >>very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on > >>behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is > >>misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at > >>least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and > >>arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does > >>not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of > >>unique identifiers.² > >> > >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve > >>Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of > >>its role in this area more precisely: > >> > >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the > >>Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text > >>that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the > >>global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not > >>precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol > >>supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether > >>the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open > >>anyway in the CCWG process? > >> > >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank > >>you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between > >>some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the > >>words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- > >>some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I > >>think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short > >>period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. > >>And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the > >>communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. > >>But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things > >>of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're > >>going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a > >>lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, > >>you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the > >>nuances is well in order. > >> > >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns > >>of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the > >>Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the > >>IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more > >>dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the > >>language around. The substantive changes include: > >> > >> > >> > >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal > >> > >> > >> IAB Proposal > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global > >>Internet¹s system of unique identifiers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet > >>registries² > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names > >>(forming a system referred to as ³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root > >>zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and > >>parameter numbers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core > >>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.² > >> > >> > >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the > >>strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to > >>raise this issue for discussion. > >> > >> Becky > >> > >> J. Beckwith Burr > >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer > >> > >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 > >>October.pdf>_______________________________________________ > >> 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
_______________________________________________ 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 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
BTW, I hope it was clear from my two posts that I supported neither rewriting the Mission nor recreating the PSO at this point in time. thanks avri On 02-Nov-15 09:14, Greg Shatan wrote:
I can understand the IAB's concerns, viewed from the perspective of those who promulgate protocols.
However, I have significant concerns, on several levels, about the timing and substance of the proposals, and the CCWG's remit and capacity to deal with this request at this time.
This is no simple request. Depending on how it is handled, it could be seen to significantly change (whether expanding or contracting) ICANN's mission.
Also, we are not beginning at the beginning. The "Mission" in the Bylaws cannot be considered without considering an even more foundational document, ICANN's Articles of Incorporation -- the document which creates (in a legal sense) ICANN. The Bylaws are a subsidiary document, and need to be consistent with the Articles. The Bylaws may be "laws," but the Articles are the "Constitution."
The relevant section of the Articles (Section 3) reads:
the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv).
We (and our counsel and ICANN's counsel) would need to consider if the Articles accurately reflect ICANN's mission and if they don't, how they should be changed. We would all need to consider how any proposed change in the Bylaws would need to be reflected by changing the Articles (and vice versa). In other words, we shouldn't even be talking about the Bylaws until we have finished talking about the Articles.
Turning to the proposal at hand:
The most critical change proposed by the IAB is to replace the base definition of ICANN's mission early in the chapeau text. This is the most fundamental statement of ICANN's mission in these Bylaws; everything else is just clarification. Where it now says that ICANN's mission is to "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers," the IAB's proposal would change this to state that ICANN's mission is to "support, at the overall level, core Internet registries." This is a radical shift. Maybe unintentionally so, but radical nonetheless. Changing ICANN's focus from "coordinating" the Internet's "unique identifiers" to "supporting" core Internet "registries" would be a seismic shift. Specifically this looks like a great diminishment of ICANN's responsibility (from "coordinating" to "supporting") and scope (from "unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries").
At one level, this is a "legal drafting" assignment. But legal drafting is a later stage in any process. What has to come first is a definition of what it is we are trying to say -- and what it is we are trying to change. Once we can answer that question accurately, the lawyers can draft language to make sure that our intentions are accurately carried out and to avoid any unintended consequences or interpretations.
At this point in our process, I'm downright terrified at embarking on a revision of ICANN's fundamental mission. This should not be done in a rush -- every bit of what ICANN can do (and can't do) flows from here. Any such change needs to be carefully and deeply considered.
Finally, with regard to the transition, I have to say that this is a "nice to have" (maybe) but not a "need to have." I would resist latching onto the transition and accountability process, and our working group, to consider and implement this change. This may seem like the "easiest" opportunity to get this change looked at, but that doesn't make it right.
Greg
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I am attending the IETF now, and I must say picked up no clue that they are even thinking about this. Lots of people come up to me and talk about ICANN and what we are up to. PSO was on no ones lips.
What I do pick up is that they are hoping we make an end of it in real time and not keep adding issues to be dealt with before things can move on. the ones that knew of the Dublin compromises where rather pleased and worried about the impression coming out of CCWG that some of those might be unraveling with people arguing for their old positions.
I will keep listening for the rest of the week and if hear anyone worrying about a resurgence of the PSO, will be sure to let the list know.
Just saying.
avri
On 02-Nov-15 06:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote: > But, > > do they want that? > > el > > On 2015-11-01 23:24 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> From three operational communities, two are currently well represented >> in the ICANN >> >> Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO, >> >> Numbers by ASO >> >> Protocol and technical parameters by No one, >> >> It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to >> the process but would it be possible to seek from them whether in their >> view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by them >> in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission >> .Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple >> >> For your kind consideration >> >> Kavouss >> >> >> 2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> >> <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>>: >> >> I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance >> was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the >> Board's credibility. >> >> The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew >> from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of >> elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere >> from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders. >> >> When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, >> and experienced from the technical community... >> >> we have lost that particular role... >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on >> Mission Statement >> From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> >> <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> >> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 >> CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl> <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>>; >> lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net> <mailto:lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>>; >> becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz> <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>; iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org> >> <mailto:iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org>>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org> <mailto:ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>>; >> marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> >> To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >> >> >> +1. >> >> I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO. >> >> (At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was >> interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT >> standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not >> correct, nor appropriate.) >> >> There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and >> assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with >> accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where? >> >> CW >> >> On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> >> <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>> wrote: >> >> I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. >> I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board >> removed the elected representative from the technical community >> with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including >> IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision >> that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus >> acceptable representatives from the technical community. >> >> Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical >> community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have >> no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of >> accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter >> from this discussion. >> >> And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very >> difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process. >> >> As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does >> not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there >> is no need that you agree with my views >> >> Marilyn Cade >> >> > From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>> >> > To: lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net> >> <mailto:lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>>; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> >> <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> >> > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 >> > CC: IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org>>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org> >> <mailto:ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>>; >> accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> >> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments >> on Mission Statement >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA >> Stewardship Transition >> > nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. >> > We should not deal with this. >> > Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a >> fundamental bylaw and >> > thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community >> feels that >> > something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now. >> > >> > best, >> > >> > Roelof >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 31-10-15 09:56, >> "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>> on >> > behalf of Lyman Chapin" >> <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>> >> > on behalf of lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net> <mailto:lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>>> >> wrote: >> > >> > >Becky and CCWG members - >> > > >> > >Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - >> and therefore >> > >by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern >> expressed by >> > >the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a >> lot more >> > >important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of >> preferring >> > >different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's >> current >> > >mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple >> matter of fact, >> > >ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global >> Internet¹s >> > >system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical >> standard, the >> > >alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission >> statement) proposed >> > >by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it >> seems obvious >> > >that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one >> that stands >> > >in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the >> IAB to >> > >develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we >> recommend >> > >that it do so. >> > > >> > >- Lyman and Julie >> > > >> > >On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: >> > > >> > >> CCWG Members >> > >> >> > >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission >> Statement, >> > >>which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the >> allocation >> > >>and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including >> Protocol port >> > >>and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early >> comments >> > >>they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to >> ³support.² WP2 >> > >>discussed this and declined to modify the existing language >> in the >> > >>Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server >> > >>community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own >> > >>description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each >> (i.e., >> > >>names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. >> > >> >> > >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB >> remains >> > >>very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to >> Andrew (on >> > >>behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the >> chapeau) is >> > >>misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been >> false at >> > >>least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting >> Organization] and >> > >>arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, >> ³ICANN does >> > >>not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's >> systems of >> > >>unique identifiers.² >> > >> >> > >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and >> Steve >> > >>Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s >> description of >> > >>its role in this area more precisely: >> > >> >> > >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm >> chair of the >> > >>Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently >> has text >> > >>that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall >> level, the >> > >>global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. >> That's not >> > >>precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the >> protocol >> > >>supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm >> wondering whether >> > >>the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since >> it's open >> > >>anyway in the CCWG process? >> > >> >> > >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. >> Andrew, thank >> > >>you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable >> disparity between >> > >>some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some >> of the >> > >>words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- >> and we've -- >> > >>some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good >> news -- I >> > >>think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last >> relatively short >> > >>period of time, we have built a much stronger technical >> team, step one. >> > >>And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected >> to the >> > >>communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to >> have been. >> > >>But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the >> scenes things >> > >>of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going >> forward, we're >> > >>going to try to align our words in a more careful way. >> There's always a >> > >>lot of equities about how many words you use to describe >> yourself which, >> > >>you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment >> of the >> > >>nuances is well in order. >> > >> >> > >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses >> the concerns >> > >>of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of >> (1) the >> > >>Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; >> and (3) the >> > >>IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear >> to be more >> > >>dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect >> moving the >> > >>language around. The substantive changes include: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> IAB Proposal >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, >> the global >> > >>Internet¹s system of unique identifiers² >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core >> Internet >> > >>registries² >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain >> Names >> > >>(forming a system referred to as ³DNS²) >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names >> in the root >> > >>zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²) >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of >> protocol port and >> > >>parameter numbers² >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to >> publish core >> > >>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.² >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. >> Given the >> > >>strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was >> important to >> > >>raise this issue for discussion. >> > >> >> > >> Becky >> > >> >> > >> J. Beckwith Burr >> > >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer >> > >> >> > >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 >> > >>October.pdf>_______________________________________________ >> > >> 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 >> > > >> > >_______________________________________________ >> > >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 >> > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
--- 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 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
Hello everybody, as the IETF liaison to the ICANN board, I can assure you that neither the IETF nor the IAB are proposing to bring PSO back. The relationship is good as it is today. Regards, Jonne. On 02 Nov 2015, at 00:13, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I am attending the IETF now, and I must say picked up no clue that they are even thinking about this. Lots of people come up to me and talk about ICANN and what we are up to. PSO was on no ones lips.
What I do pick up is that they are hoping we make an end of it in real time and not keep adding issues to be dealt with before things can move on. the ones that knew of the Dublin compromises where rather pleased and worried about the impression coming out of CCWG that some of those might be unraveling with people arguing for their old positions.
I will keep listening for the rest of the week and if hear anyone worrying about a resurgence of the PSO, will be sure to let the list know.
Just saying.
avri
On 02-Nov-15 06:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
But,
do they want that?
el
On 2015-11-01 23:24 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
From three operational communities, two are currently well represented in the ICANN
Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO,
Numbers by ASO
Protocol and technical parameters by No one,
It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to the process but would it be possible to seek from them whether in their view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by them in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission .Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple
For your kind consideration
Kavouss
2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>:
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility.
The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, and experienced from the technical community...
we have lost that particular role...
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>; lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>; iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
+1.
I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO.
(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)
There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
CW
On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> To: lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 CC: IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Dear all,
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
best,
Roelof
On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
CCWG Members
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.²
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers²
ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet registries²
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²)
ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers²
ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.²
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
<IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 October.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 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
I’d like to try to narrow the issues in play here, in the hopes of reaching closure. Setting aside the proposed change to the chapeau (from coordinate to support) is there consensus that the following accurately describes ICANN’s role vis a vis port and parameter numbers? 4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers, ICANN’s Mission is to [to be provided by the IETF]. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer On 11/2/15, 12:23 AM, "Jonne Soininen" <jonne.soininen@icann.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
as the IETF liaison to the ICANN board, I can assure you that neither the IETF nor the IAB are proposing to bring PSO back. The relationship is good as it is today.
Regards,
Jonne.
On 02 Nov 2015, at 00:13, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I am attending the IETF now, and I must say picked up no clue that they are even thinking about this. Lots of people come up to me and talk about ICANN and what we are up to. PSO was on no ones lips.
What I do pick up is that they are hoping we make an end of it in real time and not keep adding issues to be dealt with before things can move on. the ones that knew of the Dublin compromises where rather pleased and worried about the impression coming out of CCWG that some of those might be unraveling with people arguing for their old positions.
I will keep listening for the rest of the week and if hear anyone worrying about a resurgence of the PSO, will be sure to let the list know.
Just saying.
avri
On 02-Nov-15 06:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
But,
do they want that?
el
On 2015-11-01 23:24 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
From three operational communities, two are currently well represented in the ICANN
Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO,
Numbers by ASO
Protocol and technical parameters by No one,
It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to the process but would it be possible to seek from them whether in their view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by them in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission .Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple
For your kind consideration
Kavouss
2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>:
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility.
The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, and experienced from the technical community...
we have lost that particular role...
----------------------------------------------------------------------- - Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>; lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>; iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
+1.
I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO.
(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)
There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
CW
On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> To: lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 CC: IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Dear all,
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
best,
Roelof
On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>> wrote:
Becky and CCWG members -
Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend that it do so.
- Lyman and Julie
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote:
> CCWG Members > > The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, > which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation > and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port > and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments > they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 > discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the > Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server > community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own > description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., > names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. > > Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains > very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on > behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is > misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at > least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and > arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does > not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of > unique identifiers.² > > This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve > Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of > its role in this area more precisely: > > ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the > Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text > that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the > global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not > precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol > supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether > the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open > anyway in the CCWG process? > > STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank > you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between > some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the > words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- > some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I > think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short > period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. > And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the > communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. > But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things > of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're > going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a > lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, > you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the > nuances is well in order. > > The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns > of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the > Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the > IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more > dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the > language around. The substantive changes include: > > > > Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal > > > IAB Proposal > > > ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global > Internet¹s system of unique identifiers² > > > ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet > registries² > > > ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names > (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²) > > > ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root > zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²) > > > ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and > parameter numbers² > > > ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core > registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.² > > > As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the > strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to > raise this issue for discussion. > > Becky > > J. Beckwith Burr > Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer > > <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 > October.pdf>_______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai lman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtI ETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4l ZVqLB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3Rr zhrKIGakGJ9BM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVq LB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrK IGakGJ9BM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVq LB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrK IGakGJ9BM&e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7 NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGak GJ9BM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7 NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGak GJ9BM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7 NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGak GJ9BM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMk IMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGakGJ9B M&e=
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi rus&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=1p1_-lSUXgrUOE bKYz5KGB8Ei8VN_jLJ7zc3lFdVj0w&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=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMkIME z4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGakGJ9BM&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=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMkIMEz4p Nhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGakGJ9BM&e=
Agreed. -jg On 02/11/2015, 2:41 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Burr, Becky" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
I’d like to try to narrow the issues in play here, in the hopes of reaching closure. Setting aside the proposed change to the chapeau (from coordinate to support) is there consensus that the following accurately describes ICANN’s role vis a vis port and parameter numbers?
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers, ICANN’s Mission is to [to be provided by the IETF].
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
On 11/2/15, 12:23 AM, "Jonne Soininen" <jonne.soininen@icann.org> wrote:
Hello everybody,
as the IETF liaison to the ICANN board, I can assure you that neither the IETF nor the IAB are proposing to bring PSO back. The relationship is good as it is today.
Regards,
Jonne.
On 02 Nov 2015, at 00:13, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I am attending the IETF now, and I must say picked up no clue that they are even thinking about this. Lots of people come up to me and talk about ICANN and what we are up to. PSO was on no ones lips.
What I do pick up is that they are hoping we make an end of it in real time and not keep adding issues to be dealt with before things can move on. the ones that knew of the Dublin compromises where rather pleased and worried about the impression coming out of CCWG that some of those might be unraveling with people arguing for their old positions.
I will keep listening for the rest of the week and if hear anyone worrying about a resurgence of the PSO, will be sure to let the list know.
Just saying.
avri
On 02-Nov-15 06:38, Dr Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
But,
do they want that?
el
On 2015-11-01 23:24 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
From three operational communities, two are currently well represented in the ICANN
Names are mainly represented by GNSO and to great extent ccNSO,
Numbers by ASO
Protocol and technical parameters by No one,
It is true that IETF/ IAB positively and constructively contributes to the process but would it be possible to seek from them whether in their view ,it would better to re-instate PSO or just act as requested by them in replacing “ to coordinate” with “ to support” in the ICANN mission .Perhaps for the time being the later is more straight forward and simple
For your kind consideration
Kavouss
2015-11-01 22:10 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>>:
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility.
The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, and experienced from the technical community...
we have lost that particular role...
----------------------------------------------------------------------- - Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:roelof.meijer@sidn.nl>; lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>; iab@iab.org <mailto:iab@iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com> To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
+1.
I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO.
(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)
There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
CW
On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> To: lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 CC: IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Dear all,
In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. We should not deal with this. Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now.
best,
Roelof
On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>> wrote:
> Becky and CCWG members - > > Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore > by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by > the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more > important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring > different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current > mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, > ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s > system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the > alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed > by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious > that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands > in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to > develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend > that it do so. > > - Lyman and Julie > > On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: > >> CCWG Members >> >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, >> which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation >> and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port >> and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments >> they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 >> discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the >> Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server >> community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own >> description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., >> names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. >> >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains >> very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on >> behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is >> misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at >> least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and >> arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does >> not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of >> unique identifiers.² >> >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve >> Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of >> its role in this area more precisely: >> >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the >> Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text >> that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the >> global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not >> precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol >> supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether >> the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open >> anyway in the CCWG process? >> >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank >> you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between >> some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the >> words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- >> some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I >> think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short >> period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. >> And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the >> communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. >> But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things >> of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're >> going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a >> lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, >> you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the >> nuances is well in order. >> >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns >> of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the >> Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the >> IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more >> dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the >> language around. The substantive changes include: >> >> >> >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal >> >> >> IAB Proposal >> >> >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global >> Internet¹s system of unique identifiers² >> >> >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet >> registries² >> >> >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names >> (forming a system referred to as ³DNS²) >> >> >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root >> zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²) >> >> >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and >> parameter numbers² >> >> >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core >> registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.² >> >> >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the >> strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to >> raise this issue for discussion. >> >> Becky >> >> J. Beckwith Burr >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer >> >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 >> October.pdf>_______________________________________________ >> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list >> Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mai >lman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtI >ETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4l >ZVqLB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3Rr >zhrKIGakGJ9BM&e= > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVq LB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrK IGakGJ9BM&e= >
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mail man_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIET eDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVq LB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrK IGakGJ9BM&e= _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7 NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGak GJ9BM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7 NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGak GJ9BM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeD ALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7 NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGak GJ9BM&e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMk IMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGakGJ9B M&e=
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivi rus&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahO P8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMkIMEz4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=1p1_-lSUXgrUOE bKYz5KGB8Ei8VN_jLJ7zc3lFdVj0w&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=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMkIME z4pNhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGakGJ9BM&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=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lU Lrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=3u65v4lZVqLB7NMkIMEz4p Nhro7z0VPXAVfjtrwsmw0&s=Znhm1xsO4c-9IJ65B80IdGq1cbz3RrzhrKIGakGJ9BM&e=
Hi, On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:41:06PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
I’d like to try to narrow the issues in play here, in the hopes of reaching closure.
Me too. But I think I'm confused. I'm totally prepared to believe this is my fault. Still, let's get clear on the baseline text.
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers, ICANN’s Mission is to [to be provided by the IETF].
On reading, the "In this role…" portion of that struck me as really strange, because the inclusion of specific community things in parts of the mission was, I thought, exactly what we were trying to avoid. I may have misunderstood some earlier exchanges. After the exchange with Malcolm, here's what I thought I was agreeing to: The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at the overall level, certain core Internet registries, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Specifically, ICANN: 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN's mission is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies • For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability; • That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique DNS-based name systems; 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system; 3. Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers; 4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. This isn't absolutely perfect in my view, but I think it's pretty good in that it expresses plainly and succinctly the specific things ICANN does; and the top-most text is already limited. (I can imagine someone getting excited about "ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems", but I think that read in conjunction with 1-5 is ok.) Given your question, it seems that you want to have "In this role" text for each number, which is how we get the formulation in your question. But the point of (4) in my version above is that it doesn't admit of additional "in this role" text at all, because it simply says that ICANN collaborates with those other bodies as needed. For whatever it's worth, if the text instead needs to have an explicit limitation provided by the OC in question, then the IETF's is bound to be something like, "according to the MoU and supplemental agreements between ICANN and the IETF and IAB, so long as those are in effect". I am sceptical of a mission statement that includes direct references to operational contracts that are updated approximately annually and that could be terminated by some other party. That doesn't sound like a mission to me. Is that really what you want? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
The ³in this role² is optional - don¹t think you need to include anything at all, but it makes more sense in the other contexts. I think the concern that is being expressed relates to the change from ³coordinate² to ³support² in the chapeau and I was just trying to test my understanding that the concerns relates largely to functions OTHER than port and parameter numbers J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer On 11/2/15, 1:48 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:41:06PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
I¹d like to try to narrow the issues in play here, in the hopes of reaching closure.
Me too. But I think I'm confused. I'm totally prepared to believe this is my fault. Still, let's get clear on the baseline text.
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers, ICANN¹s Mission is to [to be provided by the IETF].
On reading, the "In this roleŠ" portion of that struck me as really strange, because the inclusion of specific community things in parts of the mission was, I thought, exactly what we were trying to avoid. I may have misunderstood some earlier exchanges. After the exchange with Malcolm, here's what I thought I was agreeing to:
The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at the overall level, certain core Internet registries, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Specifically, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN's mission is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies
€ For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability;
€ That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet¹s unique DNS-based name systems;
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system;
3. Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers;
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
This isn't absolutely perfect in my view, but I think it's pretty good in that it expresses plainly and succinctly the specific things ICANN does; and the top-most text is already limited. (I can imagine someone getting excited about "ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems", but I think that read in conjunction with 1-5 is ok.)
Given your question, it seems that you want to have "In this role" text for each number, which is how we get the formulation in your question. But the point of (4) in my version above is that it doesn't admit of additional "in this role" text at all, because it simply says that ICANN collaborates with those other bodies as needed.
For whatever it's worth, if the text instead needs to have an explicit limitation provided by the OC in question, then the IETF's is bound to be something like, "according to the MoU and supplemental agreements between ICANN and the IETF and IAB, so long as those are in effect". I am sceptical of a mission statement that includes direct references to operational contracts that are updated approximately annually and that could be terminated by some other party. That doesn't sound like a mission to me. Is that really what you want?
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Hello Andrew,
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
Why not be more specific here? e.g "Publishes the information on Internet protocol parameters as provided by the IETF" Core registries sounds a bit vague to me. We could simply use language from the current MoU between the IETF and ICANN - and reference it in the mission. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Good idea to use current agreements as a reference, Regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. November 2015 10:47 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] I think I'm confused (was Re: Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement) Hello Andrew,
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
Why not be more specific here? e.g "Publishes the information on Internet protocol parameters as provided by the IETF" Core registries sounds a bit vague to me. We could simply use language from the current MoU between the IETF and ICANN - and reference it in the mission. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
From: https://www.icann.org/resources/unthemed-pages/ietf-icann-mou-2000-03-01-en "The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs, including Proposed, Draft and full Internet Standards and Best Current Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for IANA assignment. If they are not so specified, or in case of ambiguity, IANA will continue to assign and register Internet protocol parameters that have traditionally been registered by IANA, following past and current practice for such assignments, unless otherwise directed by the IESG." AND "The IANA shall provide on-line facilities for the public to request Internet protocol parameter assignments and shall either execute such assignments, or deny them for non-conformance with applicable technical requirements, in a timely manner. There shall be no charge for assignments without the consent of the IAB. Requests shall only be denied on legitimate technical grounds" Regards, Bruce Tonkin -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, 3 November 2015 8:47 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] I think I'm confused (was Re: Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement) Hello Andrew,
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
Why not be more specific here? e.g "Publishes the information on Internet protocol parameters as provided by the IETF" Core registries sounds a bit vague to me. We could simply use language from the current MoU between the IETF and ICANN - and reference it in the mission. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 2015-11-03 09:47, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Andrew,
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
Why not be more specific here?
Bruce, If you thought Andrew was proposing that, I think you misread his email. I understood his point to be that this was insufficiently clear without the amended chapeau. 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 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 10:24:42AM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
If you thought Andrew was proposing that, I think you misread his email. I understood his point to be that this was insufficiently clear without the amended chapeau.
Thanks, Malcolm, that's exactly my point. To put this another way, with the existing chapeau text there's a sort of residual problem -- if there's any dispute about the way the pieces fit together, what happens? That's why the overarching text needs to be as constrained as possible. On the call today, however, there was another idea floated: just get rid of the chapeau text and deal with each case individually. As a general strategy, I think this might well work, because then we'd just be talking about the three classes of Internet identifiers that are relevant in the first place, and we wouldn't have to worry about problems we haven't imagined yet. I'm happy to try to contribute however I can to that effort. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Good idea -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2015 4:47 AM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] I think I'm confused (was Re: Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement) Hello Andrew,
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
Why not be more specific here? e.g "Publishes the information on Internet protocol parameters as provided by the IETF" Core registries sounds a bit vague to me. We could simply use language from the current MoU between the IETF and ICANN - and reference it in the mission. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:41:06PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
I’d like to try to narrow the issues in play here, in the hopes of reaching closure. Setting aside the proposed change to the chapeau (from coordinate to support) is there consensus that the following accurately describes ICANN’s role vis a vis port and parameter numbers?
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers, ICANN’s Mission is to [to be provided by the IETF].
If we drop the last bit as per your other note, we get Collaborates with othr bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. So now, unless we include the chapeau text, I don't know whether we can have consensus on whether that captures ICANN's role with respect to protocol parameters. This item can only be understood by evaluating the term, "as appropriate", and that will always end up having to be determined by evaluating the text in context. If the context is the chapeau in the bylaws today, then the context for "appropriate" would be a claim about ICANN's responsibilities that are, in my view and (as far as I can tell) the view of many others, much larger than its actual responsibilities That is the whole point of the IAB's position on this. We've been pointing this same issue out since the public comment on the first draft (and, in fact, before then, but that's less relevant to this group). We've lived with the over-broad mission for some time, but the reason the IAB was so concerned about this from our first public comment submission is because the CCWG proposes to make the mission super important. It's the basis for IRP and has to undergird all the IRP decisions. Given that there'll be no external contract to constrain ICANN (as the NTIA does now), the mission needs to reflect, accurately, the reality of what ICANN ought to be doing. The CCWG is creating (appropriately, in my view and in the view the IAB has expressed) mechanisms by which the community will hold the ICANN Board to account; but for that reason, the bylaws must be appropriate to the Board's and ICANN's responsibilities, or else the community will have good reason to ask why ICANN and its Board aren't doing what the bylaws say. If the mission is over-broad, that will create a problem. And the very same accountability mechanisms will make this particular bylaw extremely difficult to change later in order to make it smaller, because those who benefit from the more expansive position will need to persuade only a minitory to oppose the change. There should be no surprise that this is an important issue. We pointed it out repeatedly, and even a casual analysis illustrates the danger in leaving the mission too broad given that the mission is about to become a more important part of the bylaws. The CCWG is rewriting the mission anyway -- that's why we commented -- and it seems to me that if you're going to rewrite the mission it would be a good idea to make it conform to reality. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
The CCWG is rewriting the mission anyway -- that's why we commented -- and it seems to me that if you're going to rewrite the mission it would be a good idea to make it conform to reality.
Exactly my point on the 31st of oct: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/00... Cheers!
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Andrew - I didn¹t see this before I sent out the last note. If you want to suggest text for the ³collaborates with² language to clarify, please do. I do not see how we can reach consensus on replacing ³coordinate² with ³support² in the chapeau, which is why I suggested addressing the problem by eliminating it. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer On 11/2/15, 10:02 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 02:41:06PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:
I¹d like to try to narrow the issues in play here, in the hopes of reaching closure. Setting aside the proposed change to the chapeau (from coordinate to support) is there consensus that the following accurately describes ICANN¹s role vis a vis port and parameter numbers?
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet. In this role, with respect to protocol port and parameter numbers, ICANN¹s Mission is to [to be provided by the IETF].
If we drop the last bit as per your other note, we get
Collaborates with othr bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
So now, unless we include the chapeau text, I don't know whether we can have consensus on whether that captures ICANN's role with respect to protocol parameters. This item can only be understood by evaluating the term, "as appropriate", and that will always end up having to be determined by evaluating the text in context.
If the context is the chapeau in the bylaws today, then the context for "appropriate" would be a claim about ICANN's responsibilities that are, in my view and (as far as I can tell) the view of many others, much larger than its actual responsibilities
That is the whole point of the IAB's position on this. We've been pointing this same issue out since the public comment on the first draft (and, in fact, before then, but that's less relevant to this group).
We've lived with the over-broad mission for some time, but the reason the IAB was so concerned about this from our first public comment submission is because the CCWG proposes to make the mission super important. It's the basis for IRP and has to undergird all the IRP decisions. Given that there'll be no external contract to constrain ICANN (as the NTIA does now), the mission needs to reflect, accurately, the reality of what ICANN ought to be doing. The CCWG is creating (appropriately, in my view and in the view the IAB has expressed) mechanisms by which the community will hold the ICANN Board to account; but for that reason, the bylaws must be appropriate to the Board's and ICANN's responsibilities, or else the community will have good reason to ask why ICANN and its Board aren't doing what the bylaws say. If the mission is over-broad, that will create a problem. And the very same accountability mechanisms will make this particular bylaw extremely difficult to change later in order to make it smaller, because those who benefit from the more expansive position will need to persuade only a minitory to oppose the change.
There should be no surprise that this is an important issue. We pointed it out repeatedly, and even a casual analysis illustrates the danger in leaving the mission too broad given that the mission is about to become a more important part of the bylaws. The CCWG is rewriting the mission anyway -- that's why we commented -- and it seems to me that if you're going to rewrite the mission it would be a good idea to make it conform to reality.
Best regards,
A
-- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
On 03/11/2015 15:18, Burr, Becky wrote:
Andrew - I didn¹t see this before I sent out the last note. If you want to suggest text for the ³collaborates with² language to clarify, please do. I do not see how we can reach consensus on replacing ³coordinate² with ³support² in the chapeau, which is why I suggested addressing the problem by eliminating it.
Becky, Respectfully, I do not think we should dismiss the IAB/IETF submission so lightly. Given the enormous amount of effort that has gone into finding a resolution with GAC over Stress Test 18, for example, to declare so urgently a lack of consensus seems to treat the protocols community very badly. Their proposal seems quite reasonable to me. More importantly, it has quickly attracted a considerable number of supporting voices in the CCWG. Also, there has been no opposition to their main contention, that if we are changing the Mission language, we should at least ensure we do so so that it is empirically accurate. True, a small number of people have spoken out saying that they did not think CCWG should be modify the Mission. But we crossed that bridge a long time ago. I am sure with a bit more discussion they will come round to seeing that accurate modification is better than otherwise. There has been one serious, reasoned objection to the specific proposal, from Paul Twomey. I had planned to respond, but the reaction swiftly descended into name-calling and sneering at lawyers (not by Paul, I hasten to add). Paul was concerned that replacing "co-ordinates" with "supports" would diminish the apparent authority of ICANN in the eyes of the court. The answer to this is that the word "co-ordinates" remains, in both the sub-section that relates the DNS top level and the subsection that relates to the root name server system. It also remains in relation to IP addresses, but only as regards the allocation and assignment at the top-most level. So in these respects there is no reason to think ICANN's authority would be diminished in the eyes of the court; in other respects, I would question whether such apparent authority exists in any case, or whether it is desirable. I would prefer that we seek to achieve a consensus in favour of the IAB/IETF proposal, as amended, which I copy below. As a first step, I would ask Paul whether the above answer satisfies him, and if not, where lies the further concern. Kind Regards, Malcolm. On 02/11/2015 18:48, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
After the exchange with Malcolm, here's what I thought I was agreeing to:
The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at the overall level, certain core Internet registries, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Specifically, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN's mission is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies
• For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability;
• That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique DNS-based name systems;
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system;
3. Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers;
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
This isn't absolutely perfect in my view, but I think it's pretty good in that it expresses plainly and succinctly the specific things ICANN does; and the top-most text is already limited. (I can imagine someone getting excited about "ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems", but I think that read in conjunction with 1-5 is ok.)
-- 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 don’t think I am following you Malcolm. I believe we agreed this morning that eliminating the chapeau would solve the coordinate/support problem. Now it seems that may leave a hole in the protocol description. I merely asked Andrew to suggest a fix to the protocol section that does not reintroduce the support/coordinate tension. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer On 11/3/15, 11:22 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 03/11/2015 15:18, Burr, Becky wrote:
Andrew - I didn¹t see this before I sent out the last note. If you want to suggest text for the ³collaborates with² language to clarify, please do. I do not see how we can reach consensus on replacing ³coordinate² with ³support² in the chapeau, which is why I suggested addressing the problem by eliminating it.
Becky,
Respectfully, I do not think we should dismiss the IAB/IETF submission so lightly. Given the enormous amount of effort that has gone into finding a resolution with GAC over Stress Test 18, for example, to declare so urgently a lack of consensus seems to treat the protocols community very badly.
Their proposal seems quite reasonable to me. More importantly, it has quickly attracted a considerable number of supporting voices in the CCWG. Also, there has been no opposition to their main contention, that if we are changing the Mission language, we should at least ensure we do so so that it is empirically accurate.
True, a small number of people have spoken out saying that they did not think CCWG should be modify the Mission. But we crossed that bridge a long time ago. I am sure with a bit more discussion they will come round to seeing that accurate modification is better than otherwise.
There has been one serious, reasoned objection to the specific proposal, from Paul Twomey. I had planned to respond, but the reaction swiftly descended into name-calling and sneering at lawyers (not by Paul, I hasten to add).
Paul was concerned that replacing "co-ordinates" with "supports" would diminish the apparent authority of ICANN in the eyes of the court. The answer to this is that the word "co-ordinates" remains, in both the sub-section that relates the DNS top level and the subsection that relates to the root name server system. It also remains in relation to IP addresses, but only as regards the allocation and assignment at the top-most level. So in these respects there is no reason to think ICANN's authority would be diminished in the eyes of the court; in other respects, I would question whether such apparent authority exists in any case, or whether it is desirable.
I would prefer that we seek to achieve a consensus in favour of the IAB/IETF proposal, as amended, which I copy below. As a first step, I would ask Paul whether the above answer satisfies him, and if not, where lies the further concern.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
On 02/11/2015 18:48, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
After the exchange with Malcolm, here's what I thought I was agreeing to:
The Mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to support, at the overall level, certain core Internet registries, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. Specifically, ICANN:
1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN's mission is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies
? For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability;
? That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi-stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique DNS-based name systems;
2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system;
3. Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol ("IP") and Autonomous System ("AS") numbers;
4. Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.
This isn't absolutely perfect in my view, but I think it's pretty good in that it expresses plainly and succinctly the specific things ICANN does; and the top-most text is already limited. (I can imagine someone getting excited about "ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems", but I think that read in conjunction with 1-5 is ok.)
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net _&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W DDkMr4k&m=emDQPSw4PBjV4Fx_fXUYaJ1WtoV7SpvcSXc4T1U0J3o&s=SuT6TL4kkjNSEVCdcA iTj36FGczFKnXFB9TUYV_2y0g&e=
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
Hi, While I regretted the loss of the PSO, Is this transition process really the time to fiix that? Also, the Protocol community has been clear about preferring their role as ICANN clients without entanglement. Is there any evidence that this is something they are interested. I thought that Protocols had been pretty clear about the interest in an arm's length customer relationship with ICANN. avri On 02-Nov-15 06:10, Marilyn Cade wrote:
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility.
The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, and experienced from the technical community...
we have lost that particular role...
------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl; lyman@interisle.net; becky.burr@neustar.biz; iab@iab.org; ssac@icann.org; marilynscade@hotmail.com To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
+1.
I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO.
(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)
There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
CW
On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
> From: Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> > To: lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>; Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 > CC: IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org>; ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement > > Dear all, > > In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition > nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. > We should not deal with this. > Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and > thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that > something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now. > > best, > > Roelof > > > > > On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on > behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>> wrote: > > >Becky and CCWG members - > > > >Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore > >by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by > >the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more > >important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring > >different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current > >mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, > >ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s > >system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the > >alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed > >by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious > >that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands > >in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to > >develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend > >that it do so. > > > >- Lyman and Julie > > > >On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: > > > >> CCWG Members > >> > >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, > >>which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation > >>and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port > >>and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments > >>they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 > >>discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the > >>Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server > >>community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own > >>description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., > >>names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. > >> > >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains > >>very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on > >>behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is > >>misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at > >>least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and > >>arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does > >>not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of > >>unique identifiers.² > >> > >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve > >>Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of > >>its role in this area more precisely: > >> > >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the > >>Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text > >>that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the > >>global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not > >>precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol > >>supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether > >>the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open > >>anyway in the CCWG process? > >> > >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank > >>you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between > >>some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the > >>words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- > >>some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I > >>think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short > >>period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. > >>And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the > >>communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. > >>But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things > >>of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're > >>going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a > >>lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, > >>you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the > >>nuances is well in order. > >> > >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns > >>of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the > >>Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the > >>IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more > >>dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the > >>language around. The substantive changes include: > >> > >> > >> > >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal > >> > >> > >> IAB Proposal > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global > >>Internet¹s system of unique identifiers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet > >>registries² > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names > >>(forming a system referred to as ³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root > >>zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and > >>parameter numbers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core > >>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.² > >> > >> > >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the > >>strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to > >>raise this issue for discussion. > >> > >> Becky > >> > >> J. Beckwith Burr > >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer > >> > >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 > >>October.pdf>_______________________________________________ > >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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 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
On 11/1/15 1:10 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:
I too would like to reinstate the PSO. Its disappearance was without real support from the stakeholders and has limited the Board's credibility.
Agree, however there is no general discussion, and for something this loaded I'd expect on the order of a year, the amount of time we discussed lawful intercept, before the IAB could offer there is consensus to re-form a protocol supporting organization.
The seats can be taken from the NomCom seats, which grew from 5 to 8, without a real understanding of the importance of elected/accountable seats, against seats from elsewhere from the outside spaces around the Stakeholders.
When the PSO was seating members, they were seasoned, and experienced from the technical community...
That is my impression also, and as you observed earlier, they were not appointed by ICANN's NomCom, which doesn't even disclose who has offered to be appointed to ICANN's Board and several other appointed roles, but by the protocol supporting organization, and so more accountable (since as a minimum, all of those who offer to be appointed are contributors to the protocol supporting organization). Eric
we have lost that particular role... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 17:41:38 +0100 CC: roelof.meijer@sidn.nl; lyman@interisle.net; becky.burr@neustar.biz; iab@iab.org; ssac@icann.org; marilynscade@hotmail.com To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
+1.
I suggest that the solution to this problem is to re-instate the PSO.
(At the time, the 'disappearance' of PSO was surprising and was interpreted as a /'coup'/ by the IETF against other ICT standardisation entities' interests in the DNS. That was not correct, nor appropriate.)
There has to be a global level of "coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS unique identifiers … ". Preferably with accountability to all categories of users. If not ICANN, then where?
CW
On 01 Nov 2015, at 15:21, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> wrote:
I prefer that you work with the IAB for acceptable language. I was disappointed when some of you and some on the then board removed the elected representative from the technical community with appointments on a rotating basis from entities, including IETF, ITU, etc, but that did not in my view replace the vision that we had when we created ICANN to have elected and thus acceptable representatives from the technical community.
Frankly, I prefer to return to elected member from the technical community, to replace one of the NomCom appointments, which have no accountability, and are randomly able to show any kind of accountability. However, that Board reform is a different matter from this discussion.
And, Roelof, while usually, I agree with you, it is very difficult to change ICANN bylaws. and a slow process.
As I may not have posting privileges, I ask that if this does not appear on the list, that someone forward but note that there is no need that you agree with my views
Marilyn Cade
> From:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl <mailto:Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl> > To:lyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>;Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> > Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:37:28 +0000 > CC:IAB@Iab.org <mailto:IAB@Iab.org>;ssac@icann.org <mailto:ssac@icann.org>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement > > Dear all, > > In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the IANA Stewardship Transition > nor the enhancement of ICANN¹s accountability. > We should not deal with this. > Moreover, the argument that this is (will become) a fundamental bylaw and > thus ³difficult to fix later² is incorrect. If the community feels that > something should be fixed here, it will be easier than it is now. > > best, > > Roelof > > > > > On 31-10-15 09:56, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>on > behalf of Lyman Chapin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf oflyman@interisle.net <mailto:lyman@interisle.net>> wrote: > > >Becky and CCWG members - > > > >Because the mission statement will be a fundamental bylaw - and therefore > >by design extremely difficult to "fix" later - the concern expressed by > >the IAB (and echoed by others during the Dublin meeting) is a lot more > >important than it might seem; it's not just a matter of preferring > >different words to describe roughly the same thing. ICANN's current > >mission statement is empirically incorrect; as a simple matter of fact, > >ICANN does not ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s > >system of unique identifiers.² Using the same empirical standard, the > >alternatives (to this and other parts of the mission statement) proposed > >by the IAB are factually accurate. On that basis alone it seems obvious > >that the CCWG should prefer the IAB's formulation to the one that stands > >in the current bylaws, or alternatively should work with the IAB to > >develop and mutually agree upon more accurate wording, and we recommend > >that it do so. > > > >- Lyman and Julie > > > >On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Burr, Becky wrote: > > > >> CCWG Members > >> > >> The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, > >>which currently describes ICANN¹s role of coordinating the allocation > >>and assignment of the DNS¹ unique identifiers, including Protocol port > >>and parameter numbers. As some of you may recall, in early comments > >>they suggested changing the word ³coordination² to ³support.² WP2 > >>discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the > >>Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server > >>community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own > >>description of what policy ³coordination² would mean in each (i.e., > >>names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context. > >> > >> Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains > >>very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on > >>behalf of the IAB), ³the mission statement (including the chapeau) is > >>misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at > >>least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and > >>arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, ³ICANN does > >>not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of > >>unique identifiers.² > >> > >> This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve > >>Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN¹s description of > >>its role in this area more precisely: > >> > >> ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the > >>Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text > >>that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the > >>global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not > >>precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol > >>supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether > >>the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open > >>anyway in the CCWG process? > >> > >> STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank > >>you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between > >>some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the > >>words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- > >>some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I > >>think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short > >>period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. > >>And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the > >>communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. > >>But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things > >>of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're > >>going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a > >>lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, > >>you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the > >>nuances is well in order. > >> > >> The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns > >>of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the > >>Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the > >>IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more > >>dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the > >>language around. The substantive changes include: > >> > >> > >> > >> Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal > >> > >> > >> IAB Proposal > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³coordinate, at the overall level, the global > >>Internet¹s system of unique identifiers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet > >>registries² > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³Domain Names > >>(forming a system referred to as ³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of ³names in the root > >>zone of the Domain Name System (³DNS²) > >> > >> > >> ICANN coordinates the ³allocation and assignment of protocol port and > >>parameter numbers² > >> > >> > >> ICANN ³collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core > >>registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.² > >> > >> > >> As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the > >>strength of the IAB¹s views on this point, I thought it was important to > >>raise this issue for discussion. > >> > >> Becky > >> > >> J. Beckwith Burr > >> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer > >> > >> <IAB Proposed Mission Statement Changes 30 > >>October.pdf>_______________________________________________ > >> 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 _______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Becky, Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB. I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation. The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today. Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to "“coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”, and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters. The proposed text states that ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”. The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this. On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope. I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale. We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN. Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed. Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community. In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways. If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced. 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
Would be great to hear from someone at IAB regarding the proposed change to ³core Internet registries² J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer On 10/31/15, 8:52 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
Becky,
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation.
The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to "³coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers², and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters.
The proposed text states that ICANN¹s mission is to ³support, at the overall level, core Internet registries².
The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this.
On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope.
I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed.
Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community.
In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet¹s system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways.
If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net _&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W DDkMr4k&m=jT_nQ1EhVIl4advUcqbMy1s_aK--9Svo487NWn8CZ98&s=MrXWcVrhUtBGHtpkfo ISiiXmUxpRsJt_lr3doZW2JX0&e=
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
Becky I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community. But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to "support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN (including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in this area has been important. It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that they can go looking for another primary head of power. I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid survive. I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement as it now stands. Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"? Paul Paul Twomey On 10/31/15 11:52 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Becky,
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation.
The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to "“coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”, and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters.
The proposed text states that ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”.
The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this.
On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope.
I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed.
Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community.
In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways.
If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
Malcolm.
I think Paul raises an important point re the term "supports", so would also be interested in other words to strengthen the intent whilst respecting the concern of IAB On 1 Nov 2015 07:32, "Paul Twomey" <paul.twomey@argopacific.com> wrote:
Becky
I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.
But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to "support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN (including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in this area has been important.
It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that they can go looking for another primary head of power.
I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid survive.
I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement as it now stands.
Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?
Paul
Paul Twomey
On 10/31/15 11:52 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Becky,
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation.
The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to "“coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”, and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters.
The proposed text states that ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”.
The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this.
On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope.
I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed.
Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community.
In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways.
If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
Malcolm.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Paul makes some interesting tactical points. But can you point to ANY legal foundation where ICANN actually IS a "primary head of power"??? On 10/31/2015 08:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
Becky
I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.
But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to "support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN (including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in this area has been important.
It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that they can go looking for another primary head of power.
I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid survive.
I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement as it now stands.
Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?
Paul
Paul Twomey
On 10/31/15 11:52 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Becky,
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation.
The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to "“coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”, and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters.
The proposed text states that ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”.
The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this.
On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope.
I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed.
Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community.
In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways.
If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
Malcolm.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
No court outside the US and perhaps in the US will give a dead rat's fuzzy behind. And I am amazed at saying it makes sense to the (technical) community asking for it but nix it because alledgely courts are too stupid to understand. My inderstanding is that courts figure stuff out... And the rest as Nigel rightly points out are tactics too. Since when has a court accepted "because I say so" as foundation in law? Even if ICANN is trying this again and again. Courts in common law jurisdictions will consider a TLD to be property or not as they see fit. ICANN has ABSOLUTELY no role with regards to ccTLDs, in particular those before ICANN (unless there is a contract). Never mind this primacy nonsense... To combine Paul's search for a better term with Roelof's point that it doesn't belong here, I would propose to ask the IAB for clarification on both. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s On 1 Nov 2015, 01:40 +0400, Nigel Roberts<nigel@channelisles.net>, wrote:
Paul makes some interesting tactical points.
But can you point to ANY legal foundation where ICANN actually IS a "primary head of power"???
On 10/31/2015 08:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
Becky
I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.
But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to "support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN (including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in this area has been important.
It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that they can go looking for another primary head of power.
I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid survive.
I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement as it now stands.
Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?
Paul
Paul Twomey
[...]
+1 to Nigel's remarks. As Nigel asks, can anyone within or outside of ICANN and the ICANN Community actually point to the underlying fundamental legal foundation that props all this up? Stephen Deerhake -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 5:38 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement Paul makes some interesting tactical points. But can you point to ANY legal foundation where ICANN actually IS a "primary head of power"??? On 10/31/2015 08:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
Becky
I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.
But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to "support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN (including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in this area has been important.
It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that they can go looking for another primary head of power.
I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid survive.
I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement as it now stands.
Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?
Paul
Paul Twomey
On 10/31/15 11:52 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Becky,
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation.
The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to ""coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters.
The proposed text states that ICANN's mission is to "support, at the overall level, core Internet registries".
The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this.
On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope.
I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed.
Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community.
In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways.
If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
Malcolm.
_______________________________________________ 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
Why this may be important, is that judges have previously relied on the IANA contract with the US Department of Commerce to outline the authority under which the rules ICANN has put forward should be honoured (See http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS...) [ NB I do NOT want to start any discussion about any country. The case is relevant only for the Judge's rationale of authority] Without the IANA contract, judges will continue to look for rationale's about ICANN's authority in making rules about the DNS on which they can rely. That is why I am concerned that we do not weaken this. I am not talking here about hard black letter/constitutional line of authority - the type about which Nigel is asking. I am talking about having in place proclamations of expertise and 'real world' authority which allows judges to say "I am going to agree with ICANN's view of the DNS world". I would note that there are over 200 decisions of US appellate courts which implicitly refer to ICANN is a way similar to the one I have mentioned above. (see: http://www.leagle.com/leaglesearch.html?allwords%3D%26exactphrase%3DICANN%26...) Best Paul On 11/1/15 9:28 AM, Stephen Deerhake wrote:
+1 to Nigel's remarks.
As Nigel asks, can anyone within or outside of ICANN and the ICANN Community actually point to the underlying fundamental legal foundation that props all this up?
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 5:38 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Paul makes some interesting tactical points.
But can you point to ANY legal foundation where ICANN actually IS a "primary head of power"???
On 10/31/2015 08:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
Becky
I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.
But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to "support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN (including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in this area has been important.
It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that they can go looking for another primary head of power.
I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid survive.
I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement as it now stands.
Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?
Paul
Paul Twomey
On 10/31/15 11:52 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Becky,
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation.
The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to ""coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters. The proposed text states that ICANN's mission is to "support, at the overall level, core Internet registries".
The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this.
On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope.
I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed.
Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community.
In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways.
If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
Malcolm.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Dr Paul Twomey Managing Director Argo P@cific US Cell: +1 310 279 2366 Aust M: +61 416 238 501 www.argopacific.com
Paul, I think you are correct to be concerned, though I would prefer to ask how a more typical claim is analyzed by the courts. The quote below is from Name.Space v ICANN, from this year. The section is III. Sherman Act § 1, para 5:
ICANN was not required to replicate the 2000 Application Round in 2012, or even to create new TLDs. The application rules served to ensure that those who obtained new TLDs would be financially stable. This is a perfectly logical decision, and one that ICANN, through its contract with the DOC, had full authority to make.
The last line in that para is the kicker -- absent that contract with the DoC, where does ICANN's authority arise from? Eric On 10/31/15 4:41 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
Why this may be important, is that judges have previously relied on the IANA contract with the US Department of Commerce to outline the authority under which the rules ICANN has put forward should be honoured (See http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS...) [ NB I do NOT want to start any discussion about any country. The case is relevant only for the Judge's rationale of authority]
Without the IANA contract, judges will continue to look for rationale's about ICANN's authority in making rules about the DNS on which they can rely.
That is why I am concerned that we do not weaken this. I am not talking here about hard black letter/constitutional line of authority - the type about which Nigel is asking. I am talking about having in place proclamations of expertise and 'real world' authority which allows judges to say "I am going to agree with ICANN's view of the DNS world".
I would note that there are over 200 decisions of US appellate courts which implicitly refer to ICANN is a way similar to the one I have mentioned above. (see: http://www.leagle.com/leaglesearch.html?allwords%3D%26exactphrase%3DICANN%26...)
Best
Paul
On 11/1/15 9:28 AM, Stephen Deerhake wrote:
+1 to Nigel's remarks.
As Nigel asks, can anyone within or outside of ICANN and the ICANN Community actually point to the underlying fundamental legal foundation that props all this up?
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 5:38 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Paul makes some interesting tactical points.
But can you point to ANY legal foundation where ICANN actually IS a "primary head of power"???
On 10/31/2015 08:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
Becky
I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.
But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to "support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN (including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in this area has been important.
It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that they can go looking for another primary head of power.
I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid survive.
I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement as it now stands.
Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?
Paul
Paul Twomey
On 10/31/15 11:52 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Becky,
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation.
The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to ""coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters. The proposed text states that ICANN's mission is to "support, at the overall level, core Internet registries".
The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this.
On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope.
I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed.
Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community.
In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways.
If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
Malcolm.
_______________________________________________ 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
Paul, the judgement you quoted is under appeal. And whether courts put ICANN into a narrative in Domain Name related cases is one thing but as a PARTY it would be entirely different, especially if the authority ICANN "says it has" is challenged. If you were to read the other cases the narrative is often not factually correct. Never mind that whatever authority ICANN may have now by deriving it from the NTIA contract, just may not survive a transition. And I do note that you did not respond substantitatively to tthe question (underlying legal foundation)... el On 2015-11-01 03:41 , Paul Twomey wrote:
Why this may be important, is that judges have previously relied on the IANA contract with the US Department of Commerce to outline the authority under which the rules ICANN has put forward should be honoured (See http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS...) [ NB I do NOT want to start any discussion about any country. The case is relevant only for the Judge's rationale of authority]
Without the IANA contract, judges will continue to look for rationale's about ICANN's authority in making rules about the DNS on which they can rely.
That is why I am concerned that we do not weaken this. I am not talking here about hard black letter/constitutional line of authority - the type about which Nigel is asking. I am talking about having in place proclamations of expertise and 'real world' authority which allows judges to say "I am going to agree with ICANN's view of the DNS world".
I would note that there are over 200 decisions of US appellate courts which implicitly refer to ICANN is a way similar to the one I have mentioned above. (see: http://www.leagle.com/leaglesearch.html?allwords%3D%26exactphrase%3DICANN%26...)
Best
Paul
On 11/1/15 9:28 AM, Stephen Deerhake wrote:
+1 to Nigel's remarks.
As Nigel asks, can anyone within or outside of ICANN and the ICANN Community actually point to the underlying fundamental legal foundation that props all this up?
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 5:38 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Paul makes some interesting tactical points.
But can you point to ANY legal foundation where ICANN actually IS a "primary head of power"???
On 10/31/2015 08:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
Becky
I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.
But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to "support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN (including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in this area has been important.
It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that they can go looking for another primary head of power.
I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid survive.
I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement as it now stands.
Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?
Paul
Paul Twomey
On 10/31/15 11:52 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Becky,
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation.
The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to ""coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters. The proposed text states that ICANN's mission is to "support, at the overall level, core Internet registries".
The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this.
On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope.
I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed.
Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community.
In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways.
If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
Malcolm.
_______________________________________________ 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
With great respect, I do not think that word means what you think it means ... irrespective of whether the case is on appeal or not (and, as Eberhard note, it IS on appeal it is only the rationale of the case itself (which lawyers call the 'ratio decidendi') which is of any precedential value, and even then only in the jurisdiction in which it was decided. [[For information on the latest status on the appeal -- see http://www.domainpulp.com/legal/icann-next-round-in-terrorism-case-set-to-mo... --- all the documents in the ongoing case may be found on ICANN's website --- 100% for transparency there!]] The rationale of the case contains absolutely NOTHING significant about ICANN's statutory or other authority over TLDs. If you think it does, I'd be much obliged it you could direct me to the relevant paragraphs in the judgment, please. We are rather oversupplied with lawyers and legal academics in this WG, but I will risk correction and re-education and public excoriation and will venture to brief the case and submit that the rationale of the case as decided at first instanct, is,rather, as set out below: - - - WEINSTEIN & ors (Applicant) -and- INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES/NUMBERS (Respondent/Garnishee) FACTS: The Judgment Creditors held money judgments against three sovereign countries which remained unsatisfie. They issued proceedings naming the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a Third Party Garnishee allegedly holding property belonging to the Judgment Debtors; specificall Internet Protocol ('IP') address blocks, and top-level domains including International Domain Names ('IDN TLDs') JUDGMENT: The Judgment Creditors could not attach the IP addresses and TLDs that they sought to attach. RATIO: It is not necessary to decide whether top-level domains are property in order to decide this case, because even if the Applicant contentions regarding property are true, under the law on attachment in the District of Columbia, they cannot be the sort of property that may be attached/garnished (in D.C.). Accordingly the Applicant fails. OBITER: TLDs might indeed be intangible property, but it was not necessary for this Court to decide whether they are or not. - - - (If anyone understands the case differenly, I would be grateful for any suggested amendment to the above) And there's nothing about the IANA contract or ICANN's authority (or lack of it), as far as I can see. On 31/10/15 23:41, Paul Twomey wrote:
Why this may be important, is that judges have previously relied on the IANA contract with the US Department of Commerce to outline the authority under which the rules ICANN has put forward should be honoured (Se http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS...)
Whilst all of this claim and counterclaim, legal banter, use of Latin, general attempts to out-lawyer one another and engaging in academic discourse whilst wearing a virtual wig and gown is all very interesting, the key points IMO are these: A suggestion has been made that the wording of the current bylaw could be interpreted in a way that inaccurately reflects the true position. That may or may not be correct. Some suggestions have been made about alternative wording. A change in the wording to be "more accurate" in respect to the protocol parameters could well make the wording "less accurate" in respect to the DNS (or aspects of it). All suggested alternatives are open to interpretation. The only people qualified to wordsmith this are US corporate lawyers with experience in Californian law. Significant changes to key bylaws should not be undertaken lightly. This has very little to do with accountability changes required for the transition. We are building a mechanism under which by law changes either have to be approved by or can be blocked by the community. It may well be that ICANN's bylaws require significant review and the processes we are putting in place will ensure that the community has the ultimate responsibility for that. Now is not the time to tackle such substantive issues. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 1 Nov 2015, at 21:25, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
With great respect, I do not think that word means what you think it means ... irrespective of whether the case is on appeal or not (and, as Eberhard note, it IS on appeal it is only the rationale of the case itself (which lawyers call the 'ratio decidendi') which is of any precedential value, and even then only in the jurisdiction in which it was decided.
[[For information on the latest status on the appeal -- see http://www.domainpulp.com/legal/icann-next-round-in-terrorism-case-set-to-mo... --- all the documents in the ongoing case may be found on ICANN's website --- 100% for transparency there!]]
The rationale of the case contains absolutely NOTHING significant about ICANN's statutory or other authority over TLDs. If you think it does, I'd be much obliged it you could direct me to the relevant paragraphs in the judgment, please.
We are rather oversupplied with lawyers and legal academics in this WG, but I will risk correction and re-education and public excoriation and will venture to brief the case and submit that the rationale of the case as decided at first instanct, is,rather, as set out below:
- - - WEINSTEIN & ors (Applicant)
-and-
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES/NUMBERS (Respondent/Garnishee)
FACTS: The Judgment Creditors held money judgments against three sovereign countries which remained unsatisfie. They issued proceedings naming the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a Third Party Garnishee allegedly holding property belonging to the Judgment Debtors; specificall Internet Protocol ('IP') address blocks, and top-level domains including International Domain Names ('IDN TLDs')
JUDGMENT: The Judgment Creditors could not attach the IP addresses and TLDs that they sought to attach.
RATIO: It is not necessary to decide whether top-level domains are property in order to decide this case, because even if the Applicant contentions regarding property are true, under the law on attachment in the District of Columbia, they cannot be the sort of property that may be attached/garnished (in D.C.). Accordingly the Applicant fails.
OBITER: TLDs might indeed be intangible property, but it was not necessary for this Court to decide whether they are or not.
- - -
(If anyone understands the case differenly, I would be grateful for any suggested amendment to the above)
And there's nothing about the IANA contract or ICANN's authority (or lack of it), as far as I can see.
On 31/10/15 23:41, Paul Twomey wrote:
Why this may be important, is that judges have previously relied on the IANA contract with the US Department of Commerce to outline the authority under which the rules ICANN has put forward should be honoured (Se http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS...)
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I still think we should ask Sullivan what they mean. And indeed without treatises needing executive summaries. Never mind that the underlying issue of foundation is not only "interesting" but might come back to bite us. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 1 Nov 2015, at 12:55, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Whilst all of this claim and counterclaim, legal banter, use of Latin, general attempts to out-lawyer one another and engaging in academic discourse whilst wearing a virtual wig and gown is all very interesting, the key points IMO are these:
A suggestion has been made that the wording of the current bylaw could be interpreted in a way that inaccurately reflects the true position. That may or may not be correct.
Some suggestions have been made about alternative wording.
A change in the wording to be "more accurate" in respect to the protocol parameters could well make the wording "less accurate" in respect to the DNS (or aspects of it).
All suggested alternatives are open to interpretation. The only people qualified to wordsmith this are US corporate lawyers with experience in Californian law.
Significant changes to key bylaws should not be undertaken lightly.
This has very little to do with accountability changes required for the transition.
We are building a mechanism under which by law changes either have to be approved by or can be blocked by the community.
It may well be that ICANN's bylaws require significant review and the processes we are putting in place will ensure that the community has the ultimate responsibility for that.
Now is not the time to tackle such substantive issues.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 1 Nov 2015, at 21:25, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
With great respect, I do not think that word means what you think it means ... irrespective of whether the case is on appeal or not (and, as Eberhard note, it IS on appeal it is only the rationale of the case itself (which lawyers call the 'ratio decidendi') which is of any precedential value, and even then only in the jurisdiction in which it was decided.
[[For information on the latest status on the appeal -- see http://www.domainpulp.com/legal/icann-next-round-in-terrorism-case-set-to-mo... --- all the documents in the ongoing case may be found on ICANN's website --- 100% for transparency there!]]
The rationale of the case contains absolutely NOTHING significant about ICANN's statutory or other authority over TLDs. If you think it does, I'd be much obliged it you could direct me to the relevant paragraphs in the judgment, please.
We are rather oversupplied with lawyers and legal academics in this WG, but I will risk correction and re-education and public excoriation and will venture to brief the case and submit that the rationale of the case as decided at first instanct, is,rather, as set out below:
- - - WEINSTEIN & ors (Applicant)
-and-
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES/NUMBERS (Respondent/Garnishee)
FACTS: The Judgment Creditors held money judgments against three sovereign countries which remained unsatisfie. They issued proceedings naming the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a Third Party Garnishee allegedly holding property belonging to the Judgment Debtors; specificall Internet Protocol ('IP') address blocks, and top-level domains including International Domain Names ('IDN TLDs')
JUDGMENT: The Judgment Creditors could not attach the IP addresses and TLDs that they sought to attach.
RATIO: It is not necessary to decide whether top-level domains are property in order to decide this case, because even if the Applicant contentions regarding property are true, under the law on attachment in the District of Columbia, they cannot be the sort of property that may be attached/garnished (in D.C.). Accordingly the Applicant fails.
OBITER: TLDs might indeed be intangible property, but it was not necessary for this Court to decide whether they are or not.
- - -
(If anyone understands the case differenly, I would be grateful for any suggested amendment to the above)
And there's nothing about the IANA contract or ICANN's authority (or lack of it), as far as I can see.
On 31/10/15 23:41, Paul Twomey wrote:
Why this may be important, is that judges have previously relied on the IANA contract with the US Department of Commerce to outline the authority under which the rules ICANN has put forward should be honoured (Se http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS...)
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, I do not believe one could imagine or claim that Quote " The only people that are qualified to wordsmith this are US lawyers with experience in corporate law" Unquote My reaction to such underestimation of other lawyers in the world is the following That is your views that we do not share There are many others who have in-depth knowledge about corporate laws in the world . You may be among those who either unfamiliar or little knowledge on those corporate laws. Regards. Pls then limit your intervention to yourselves and.... Kaviuss Sent from my iPhone
On 1 Nov 2015, at 11:55, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Whilst all of this claim and counterclaim, legal banter, use of Latin, general attempts to out-lawyer one another and engaging in academic discourse whilst wearing a virtual wig and gown is all very interesting, the key points IMO are these:
A suggestion has been made that the wording of the current bylaw could be interpreted in a way that inaccurately reflects the true position. That may or may not be correct.
Some suggestions have been made about alternative wording.
A change in the wording to be "more accurate" in respect to the protocol parameters could well make the wording "less accurate" in respect to the DNS (or aspects of it).
All suggested alternatives are open to interpretation. The only" people qualified to wordsmith this are US corporate lawyers with experience in Californian law.
Significant changes to key bylaws should not be undertaken lightly.
This has very little to do with accountability changes required for the transition.
We are building a mechanism under which by law changes either have to be approved by or can be blocked by the community.
It may well be that ICANN's bylaws require significant review and the processes we are putting in place will ensure that the community has the ultimate responsibility for that.
Now is not the time to tackle such substantive issues.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 1 Nov 2015, at 21:25, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
With great respect, I do not think that word means what you think it means ... irrespective of whether the case is on appeal or not (and, as Eberhard note, it IS on appeal it is only the rationale of the case itself (which lawyers call the 'ratio decidendi') which is of any precedential value, and even then only in the jurisdiction in which it was decided.
[[For information on the latest status on the appeal -- see http://www.domainpulp.com/legal/icann-next-round-in-terrorism-case-set-to-mo... --- all the documents in the ongoing case may be found on ICANN's website --- 100% for transparency there!]]
The rationale of the case contains absolutely NOTHING significant about ICANN's statutory or other authority over TLDs. If you think it does, I'd be much obliged it you could direct me to the relevant paragraphs in the judgment, please.
We are rather oversupplied with lawyers and legal academics in this WG, but I will risk correction and re-education and public excoriation and will venture to brief the case and submit that the rationale of the case as decided at first instanct, is,rather, as set out below:
- - - WEINSTEIN & ors (Applicant)
-and-
INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES/NUMBERS (Respondent/Garnishee)
FACTS: The Judgment Creditors held money judgments against three sovereign countries which remained unsatisfie. They issued proceedings naming the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a Third Party Garnishee allegedly holding property belonging to the Judgment Debtors; specificall Internet Protocol ('IP') address blocks, and top-level domains including International Domain Names ('IDN TLDs')
JUDGMENT: The Judgment Creditors could not attach the IP addresses and TLDs that they sought to attach.
RATIO: It is not necessary to decide whether top-level domains are property in order to decide this case, because even if the Applicant contentions regarding property are true, under the law on attachment in the District of Columbia, they cannot be the sort of property that may be attached/garnished (in D.C.). Accordingly the Applicant fails.
OBITER: TLDs might indeed be intangible property, but it was not necessary for this Court to decide whether they are or not.
- - -
(If anyone understands the case differenly, I would be grateful for any suggested amendment to the above)
And there's nothing about the IANA contract or ICANN's authority (or lack of it), as far as I can see.
On 31/10/15 23:41, Paul Twomey wrote:
Why this may be important, is that judges have previously relied on the IANA contract with the US Department of Commerce to outline the authority under which the rules ICANN has put forward should be honoured (Se http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150105808/STERN%20v.%20THE%20IS...)
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
Thank you for the expected excoriation, as foreseen. It has everthing to do with the accountability changes required for the transition. Paul's take on things, predictability, is that ICANN is, to use his words 'a primary head of power'. I disagree, and have asked for any legal foundation for this. Weinstein was quoted as a source of that authority which it isn't. The question remains, that once the apparent authority of NTIA has gone, what legal authority will ICANN have to affect the business, say, of any ccTLD .. and inextricably bound with authority, the obverse side of the coin is is what obligations will ICANN owe, and will it be accountable for them.
This has very little to do with accountability changes required for the transition.
😀. As you know I don't disagree with you regarding the conundrum of authority. My point, as you also know, is about timing and when to take on solving the problem from a ccTLD point of view. We built the ccNSO, around the current bylaw, in a way that enabled ccTLDs to join or not and to ensure that sovereignty was not affected by joining. I think that if the goal is to complete the transition in the timeframe then there will be a number of matters that cannot be dealt with in time. And I believe we are building a mechanism that will ensure those things can be dealt with. In any event, the right place to work on a 'ccTLD correct' mission bylaw is in the ccNSO, not in the CCWG. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 2 Nov 2015, at 17:44, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Thank you for the expected excoriation, as foreseen.
It has everthing to do with the accountability changes required for the transition.
Paul's take on things, predictability, is that ICANN is, to use his words 'a primary head of power'.
I disagree, and have asked for any legal foundation for this. Weinstein was quoted as a source of that authority which it isn't.
The question remains, that once the apparent authority of NTIA has gone, what legal authority will ICANN have to affect the business, say, of any ccTLD .. and inextricably bound with authority, the obverse side of the coin is is what obligations will ICANN owe, and will it be accountable for them.
This has very little to do with accountability changes required for the transition.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
As you know, there's nothing in the below that I disagree with. And as you also know, that despite the deal that was reached 10 years ago that enable ccTLDs to participate in ICANN (and in many ways, most successfully), there remains a historic trust issue that although no-one nowadays would impute bad faith to any ICANN Board Member or staff member, nonetheless "trust but verify" applies. The real conundrum is whether the status quo is so undesirable that we should leap into the unknown without appropriate and adequate, enforceable accountability measures. (* As Lenin put it "Доверяй, но проверяй") On 02/11/15 09:13, Chris Disspain wrote:
😀.
As you know I don't disagree with you regarding the conundrum of authority.
My point, as you also know, is about timing and when to take on solving the problem from a ccTLD point of view. We built the ccNSO, around the current bylaw, in a way that enabled ccTLDs to join or not and to ensure that sovereignty was not affected by joining.
I think that if the goal is to complete the transition in the timeframe then there will be a number of matters that cannot be dealt with in time. And I believe we are building a mechanism that will ensure those things can be dealt with.
In any event, the right place to work on a 'ccTLD correct' mission bylaw is in the ccNSO, not in the CCWG.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 2 Nov 2015, at 17:44, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Thank you for the expected excoriation, as foreseen.
It has everthing to do with the accountability changes required for the transition.
Paul's take on things, predictability, is that ICANN is, to use his words 'a primary head of power'.
I disagree, and have asked for any legal foundation for this. Weinstein was quoted as a source of that authority which it isn't.
The question remains, that once the apparent authority of NTIA has gone, what legal authority will ICANN have to affect the business, say, of any ccTLD .. and inextricably bound with authority, the obverse side of the coin is is what obligations will ICANN owe, and will it be accountable for them.
This has very little to do with accountability changes required for the transition.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Stephen, See http://law.lclark.edu/law_reviews/lewis_and_clark_law_review/past_issues/vol..., in particular the exchange of papers between Joe Sims and Cynthia L. Bauerly, writing for Jones Day, and Michael Froomkin, and of course Michael's book-length paper on the subject, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=252523 Eric On 10/31/15 3:28 PM, Stephen Deerhake wrote:
+1 to Nigel's remarks.
As Nigel asks, can anyone within or outside of ICANN and the ICANN Community actually point to the underlying fundamental legal foundation that props all this up?
Stephen Deerhake
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 5:38 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement
Paul makes some interesting tactical points.
But can you point to ANY legal foundation where ICANN actually IS a "primary head of power"???
On 10/31/2015 08:32 PM, Paul Twomey wrote:
Becky
I think the points made by Malcolm and the IAB make a lot of sense when viewed from the perspective of the engineering/technical community.
But I would observe that the wording will interpreted with most impact on daily work of the ICANN community not by non technical entities, but particularly by the courts in various lands and the ongoing international "politics of technology" processes. When I look at the proposed wording from that perspective, I worry that shifting to "support" in the Mission statement could result in destabilising uncertainty. As we have seen in various litigation (to give only one example, litigation about trying to get TLDs recognized as property which the Courts can order moved from one party to another), the ability for the Judge's not to have any doubt as to the primacy of the ICANN (including community) role in determining the general rules/approach in this area has been important.
It could be destabilising if we leave the impression in the politico/legal arena that ICANN only plays a supporting role, and that they can go looking for another primary head of power.
I admit I am writing this from something of a paranoid view, but then I do have sympathy with Andy Grove's observation that only the paranoid survive.
I can also understand why the IAB questions the operational accuracy of the use of the term "coordinates" in the opening sentence of the Mission Statement as it now stands.
Is there a way of getting a more robust term than just "support"?
Paul
Paul Twomey
On 10/31/15 11:52 PM, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Becky,
Thank you for bringing forward this proposal from the IAB.
I think we should support the intent here. I do, however, have a concern about one aspect of the implementation.
The main overall effect of this proposal, and I believe its intent, is to limit the statement of ICANN's Mission so that it more closely reflects what is empirically ICANN's role today.
Existing text states that ICANN's Mission is to ""coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", and then goes on to says that "In particular", ICANN does certain things regarding each of DNS, IP addresses and AS numbers, and protocol parameters. The proposed text states that ICANN's mission is to "support, at the overall level, core Internet registries".
The change of verb, from "coordinate" to "support" seems to me to be a good change: ICANN supports DNS, IP addressing and protocol parameters in different ways, and the verb "co-ordinate" might wrongly suggest responsibilities for ICANN that it does not have. For example, ICANN does not in fact have change control authority over protocol parameters; that lies with the IETF, and ICANN's role is to publish registries of those parameters. Changing from "co-ordinate" to "support" more accurately reflects this.
On the other hand, the change of object from "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers" to "core Internet registries" is a broadening of scope.
I am not sure what the limits of the scope of "core Internet registries" is intended to be. Is a broadening of scope beyond the current text intentional? If so, I would like to know the rationale.
We need to be aware that future technologies might result in the creation of new registries yet to be invented. I'm not sure we want those to be automatically invested in ICANN.
Speaking as someone from the network operator community, it's not at all obvious to me that ICANN would necessarily be the obvious repository for some future registry that was used operationally (that is, one consulted in "run-time", as with the DNS or the global routing table, as opposed to one consulted at software design time, as with (most? all?) IETF protocol parameters). We might instead look to the Regional Internet Registries, or to some other entity or, as with the routing table, it might be distributed.
Even if we did wish to invest ICANN with responsiblity for such a future registry, the nature of that responsibility might need to be carefully defined and limited, just has been done with DNS and with IP addresses. If we exclude such new registries from the scope of ICANN's Mission now, they could still be taken on later but to do so would require a Fundamental Bylaws change; such a process would give an opportunity for careful scrutiny and development of precisely what ICANN's role in relation to that registry ought to be. On the other hand, if we now decide that such a future registry is automatically ICANN's responsibility, then a very different process will determine how ICANN relates to it, a process that could result in ICANN undertaking a function for which there is no current analogy, and without requiring the positive consent of the community.
In summary, before expanding ICANN's role beyond "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers", I think we should hear why that is needed, and carefully consider whether there might be inadvertent consequences. When we hear the rationale, it might be possible to accommodate it in other ways.
If the rationale is nothing more than that the IETF fears that some of its protocol parameters registries could not be described as "globally unique identifiers", a more tailored solution is surely available. We could simply authorise ICANN to publish registries of protocol parameters when requested to do so by the IETF, or by protocol development bodies generally. That would be much simpler, and the opportunity for inadvertent consequences would be greatly reduced.
Malcolm.
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Becky, I believe the first 2 recommendations are fine. I however will suggest minor edit on the third recommendation as thus: "ICANN in collaboration with other bodies as appropriate coordinates the allocation, assignment and publication of protocol port and parameter numbers” Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 31 Oct 2015 06:04, "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:
CCWG Members –
The IAB has raised a significant concern about the Mission Statement, which currently describes ICANN’s role of *coordinating the allocation and assignment of the DNS’ unique identifiers, including **Protocol port and parameter numbers*. As some of you may recall, in early comments they suggested changing the word “coordination” to “support.” WP2 discussed this and declined to modify the existing language in the Bylaws, but provided an opportunity for the ASO, the Root Server community, and the port/parameter community to provide their own description of what policy “coordination” would mean in each (i.e., names, numbers, root servers, protocol/parameters) context.
Andrew Sullivan, Chair of IAB, has informed me that the IAB remains very concerned about the Mission Statement. According to Andrew (on behalf of the IAB), “the mission statement (including the chapeau) is misleading, has caused us problems in the past, and has been false at least since the end of the PSO [Protocol Supporting Organization] and arguably before that. In particular, according to the IAB, “ICANN does not "coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers.”
This issue was discussed in the Public Forum in Dublin, and Steve Crocker expressed support for working to align ICANN’s description of its role in this area more precisely:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: Hi, my name is Andrew Sullivan. And I'm chair of the
Internet Architecture Board. The mission of ICANN currently has text that ICANN -- and I quote -- is to coordinate at the overall level, the global Internet systems of unique identifiers. End quote. That's not precisely true any more and hasn't been at least since the protocol supporting organization disappeared from ICANN. I'm wondering whether the Board is open to changing this part of the mission since it's open anyway in the CCWG process?
STEVE CROCKER: I think I'm the designated hitter here. Andrew, thank you very much. There's been a somewhat uncomfortable disparity between some of the words that we use to describe ourselves and some of the words that our close friends use to describe us. We have -- and we've -- some of us have been paying attention for a while. The good news -- I think it's extremely good news -- is that over the last relatively short period of time, we have built a much stronger technical team, step one. And step 2 is would are we have actually got them connected to the communications process. Harder than I would have liked it to have been. But it's now there. And it's been one of these behind the scenes things of where we've been pressing. So I think that, going forward, we're going to try to align our words in a more careful way. There's always a lot of equities about how many words you use to describe yourself which, you know. But I think some greater precision and adjustment of the nuances is well in order.
The IAB has provided some proposed text, which addresses the concerns of its members. I have attached a side-by-side comparison of (1) the Existing Mission Statement; (2) the current CCWG proposal; and (3) the IAB proposal. I should note that the proposed changes appear to be more dramatic than they actually are. Most of the changes reflect moving the language around. The substantive changes include:
Current Bylaws/CCWG Proposal
IAB Proposal
ICANN’s mission is to “coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers”
ICANN’s mission is to “support, at the overall level, core Internet registries”
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “Domain Names (forming a system referred to as “DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the allocation and assignment of “names in the root zone of the Domain Name System (“DNS”)
ICANN coordinates the “allocation and assignment of protocol port and parameter numbers”
ICANN “collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to publish core registries needed for the functioning of the Internet.”
As indicated above, a more complete comparison is attached. Given the strength of the IAB’s views on this point, I thought it was important to raise this issue for discussion.
Becky
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (26)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Burr, Becky -
Chartier, Mike S -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Chris Disspain -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Greg Shatan -
James Gannon -
Jonne Soininen -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Lyman Chapin -
Malcolm Hutty -
Marilyn Cade -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Twomey -
Robin Gross -
Roelof Meijer -
Rudolph Daniel -
Seun Ojedeji -
Stephen Deerhake