ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [dow1-2tf] mission creep (ALL PLEASE READ)

  • To: "Tom Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] mission creep (ALL PLEASE READ)
  • From: "Steven J. Metalitz IIPA" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:05:15 -0500
  • Cc: "Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Milton Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcTTjR7tuqg2Gb8BS0ufiOqFsRQhUQASx+LQ
  • Thread-topic: [dow1-2tf] mission creep (ALL PLEASE READ)

 I am prepared to accept this change in the language but without
endorsing a lot of the remarks made in this thread.  This discussion
illustrates the confusion between developing a procedure for use under
particular circumstances, and the seemingly insatiable desire of some
participants to put a thumb on the scale and dictate the outcome of
particular cases to which that procedure might apply.  

I think it is safe to assume, based on past experience, that the
circumstances in which the procedure will become applicable will occur
very rarely, if ever.  I also find the future specter of ICANN misusing
its contractual powers through too aggressive enforcement somewhat
far-fetched, again based on 5 years of experience under these contracts.
If the procedure is ever invoked in the future, I am certainly
comfortable with the idea that the General Counsel can make a
recommendation, based on the particular facts of that case, and that the
Board can act upon that recommendation, and that the quality of
decisionmaking in that future case will not be improved because of some
formulation painstakingly negotiated among a few Task Force participants
during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend of 2004.  I agree with Tim that
we would be better off without any of this language, but since not
everyone in the Task Force is prepared to let go of it, I would not
block the change Milton suggests.  


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2004 2:54 AM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: Jeff Neuman; 'Tim Ruiz'; Milton Mueller; marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Subject: Re: [dow1-2tf] mission creep (ALL PLEASE READ)

I agree with Marylin and Milton to keep the language consistent with the
ICANN Bylaws and suggest to move on with this "new" wording as



Am 24.11.2004 schrieb Marilyn Cade:
> I think that we are better off to keep our language consistent with 
> the narrow mission of ICANN, as Tim, Milton, and others are 
> suggesting. When you read the Strategic Plan, you might get the idea 
> that they are responsible for the Internet, per se.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:48 PM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Milton Mueller'; marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Neuman, Jeff
> Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] mission creep (ALL PLEASE READ)
> I can go either way on this one.  ICANN must always act within its 
> mission (at least in theory), so I do not see the possible bad effects

> that could occur if we left in the word "internet".  After all, it is 
> not our document that gives ICANN more power, but rather it is derived
from their own bylaws.
> Like I said, I am fine with keeping the word Internet in there, but I 
> would be happy to change it as well.
> I would like to get this resolved prior to Capetown.
> Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 2:27 PM
> To: 'Milton Mueller'; marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [dow1-2tf] mission creep
> Milton,
> From ICANN's own website:
> "As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the

> operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to 
> achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to 
> developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, 
> consensus-based processes."
> This gets to the issue of defining stability and security as I said in

> my earlier response.
> Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:58 PM
> To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: dow1-2tf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [dow1-2tf] mission creep
> >>> Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 11/24/2004 8:51:55 AM >>>
> >ICANN's mission involves the security and stability of the Internet. 
> I thank Tim for bringing this up. It indicates a slight error in the 
> statement that needs to be corrected.
> ICANN's mission is NOT the security and stability of "the Internet." 
> It is to coordinate unique identifiers and to ensure stable and secure

> operation of unique identifier systems. "Security and stable of unique

> identifiers" is not "security and stability of 'the Internet' as a 
> whole; the latter is a vast undertaking that is way beyond the scope 
> of ICANN, involving such things as the operation of ISPs and their 
> routing practices, software installations by the end user, etc.
> For that reason, I would propose the following change in wording on p.
> 2, step 3, part iii: replace "the Internet" at the end of the sentence

> with "Internet's unique identifier systems."
> This should be noncontroversial because it simply makes the statement 
> conform to ICANN's actuall mission as defined in its bylaws. See below
> =====
> FYI, Here is the mission statement:
> "The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
> Numbers
> ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global 
> Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure 
> the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier
> Article 1:
> "1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of 
> unique identifiers for the Internet, which are
> a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS");
> b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") 
> numbers; and
> c. Protocol port and parameter numbers.
> 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server

> system.
> 3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related

> to these technical functions."



(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w  

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>