One of two to Malcolm Hutty. A ----- Forwarded message from Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> ----- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:56:38 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> To: Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> Cc: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>, "IAB@Iab.org" <IAB@Iab.org>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [IAB] [CCWG-ACCT] Please review regarding IAB comments on Mission Statement List-Id: "Internet Architecture Board \(IAB\)" <iab.iab.org> Hi Malcolm, On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:52:36PM +0000, Malcolm Hutty wrote:

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.

That's the intent, yes.

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.

The change was actually intended to _limit_ scope, rather than broaden. Let me try to explain what we were thinking. You will note that the change to "core Internet registries" does _not_ say "all core Internet registries". This is on purpose. ICANN-as-IANA does not, in fact, today operate all the core Internet registries, and does not operate or even co-ordinate the global Internet's system of unique identifiers either. For instance, IANA does not operate the enum registry; it's operated by RIPE. The time zone database was handled on purpose separately from the normal IANA registry approach, too, and the IAB's role is different with respect to that database than with the rest of the IANA registries. As a less subtle example, ICANN as IANA certainly does not operate the twitter.com or gmail.com zones; but they also contain important unique identifiers on the Internet. The IAB thought that limiting the role to (some) Internet registries more accurately captured ICANN's role. We thought "the global Internet's system of unique identifiers" suggested a more direct role in operations than ICANN necessarily has. It happens to operate one of the names in the root NS set, for instance, but it's not clear that's a core part of ICANN's mission and anyway it's only one of 12 independent operators. Similarly, ICANN has no role at all in either operation or zone policy at levels lower in the DNS tree. For instance, ICANN policy wisely restricts labels in the root zone to letters, digits, and hyphen (IDNs use IDNA to make this happen, which is where the xn--[something] labels come from). Lower in the DNS tree, there are lots of other conventions used. Those conventions are not useful in the root because they don't work for general cases, but they are useful in other conditions and entirely appropriate in those other parts of the tree. Such rules are not developed, co-ordinated, imposed, managed, or directly affected by ICANN, but they're an important part of the global Internet's system of unique identifiers. ICANN has nothing whatsoever to do with the local part of email addresses (in left to right scripts, the part to the left of the @ sign, such as ajs in ajs@anvilwalrusden.com), but email addresses are plainly part of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. There are more examples, but this is probably enough to illustrate. It's our view that the language about "global Internet's system of unique identifiers" is part of the reason many people continue to think (and write news stories to the effect) that ICANN is somehow in control of the Internet. If the mission were clearer about just how limited (while still crucial) the IANA remit were, perhaps we would not be facing overblown worries about "giving the Internet away" and so on -- worries that have made the IANA transition itself more controversial than it ought to be. I hope this makes plainer at least what our thinking is. The IAB is not trying to be firm about the precise way things are stated, and I am more than happy to try to find better language. We're just trying to make the language itself precise, so that ICANN's mission accurately reflects what it does (and doesn't include things that, I think everyone agrees, ICANN shouldn't and doesn't want to do). Best regards, A (speaking for myself) -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com