[council] changing the subject line: A different suggestion than voting on conclusions...
reading Philip's summation again, and offering some edits to it, and now reading
J.Scott's suggestion, I offer a suggestion which I hope can help to
move us all past this issue.
don't think that we should be voting on conclusions at all at this stage of our
work together. I didn't take Philip's summary as anything other than an effort
to provide a draft statement but I don't think that we are "there"
yet in terms of voting on any conclusions at this
about agreeing that the chair can put forward what he thinks might be
a DRAFT summary OF INITIAL conclusions [did I give that enough options?] OR EVEN
"PRELIMINARY FINDINGS" then we can discuss whether there is "general
concurrence", document that, and then we need to move on and have discussions
about the next issue.
short, I do not support voting on "conclusions" at this stage of our
discussions. Let me explain why: If we vote on conclusions at this
stage on a progressive schedule, and then as we discuss the next topic,we
learn something which changes the viewpoint, we will have to go back, rediscuss,
appears that a further discussion of "mission" is needed to support further
work. I would welcome seeing proposed mission ideas.
BC, we have a pretty good sense of where most of our members are on
" mission" but we are still in consultation. I suspect we are "typical" in
say that I didn't take the same kind of work assignment that the IPC did out of
the discussion, but instead the BC will focus in on the existing mission and the
summary of work to build comments from. ) However, our existing principles and
positions already taken would indicate that we would likely continue support for
the existing mission and activities, and maintaining consistency with the
principles of the White Paper... BUT, as I said,
we are taking further consultation, as all of us are.
J. Scott Evans [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03,
2002 7:50 AM
To: NC (list); Philip Sheppard
[council] Conclusions to call no on ICANN Evolution
I have just reviewed the
"Conclusions to call on ICANN Evolution" below. Perhaps I missed
something on our call; however, I do not remember any consensus. In
fact, I specifically remember that you suggested that the constituencies
provide a written idea of ICANN's mission for consideration by the NC
members. I certainly never agreed to the formulation of ICANN's mission
that you have presented in your summary. I do remember discussing the
"What ICANN does" paper. I also remember you pointing out that I seemed
to be happy with ICANN's current functions as laid out in that paper. I
did not and do not now disagree with that summarization of my opinion.
On the other hand, I find it problematic that you have formulated what
appears to be a mission statement when I do not remember any agreement on this
issue. Secondly, I do not remember the NC ever agreeing on either
concept that you have labeled "Recommendations" in your report. I do
remember some discussion on these issues, but I believe that it is an
overstatement to say they are NC recommendations.
I have no problem with you
attempting to move the discussions along. I do, however, find it
disturbing that your characterizations are far more conclusive than I remember
our discussions being. In fact, I reported to the IPC that we ( the IPC)
needed to put together a written proposal on our view of ICANN's mission for
submission to the NC. Accordingly, many members of our constituency have
worked long hours to put together the necessary document. I now look a
bit foolish when the NC Chair subsequently posts a document purporting to set
forth conclusions from the NC call which, frankly, I think overstate the
position and do not accurately reflect the discussion on the NC
I therefore request that the
agenda for tomorrow's call be amended to include a discussion of your report
and then we can vote on whether it is the NC's position.
J. Scott Evans
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:36
Subject: [council] Conclusions to call
no on ICANN Evolution
Following input from Thomas Roessler and Marilyn
Cade, I am happy to adopt their suggested wording (last two paragraphs)
as friendly amendments and propose the following as conclusions to our
first call. In order to make progress I will assume the NC agrees to this
unless I hear to the contrary before the start of our next
DRAFT version 2
Scope and mission of ICANN
In broad terms the NC agreed with the factual description
of ICANN's functions listed in "What ICANN
Does" at: http://www.icann.org/general/toward-mission-statement-07mar02.htm
"ICANN is responsible for coordinating the
Internet's naming, address allocation, and protocol parameter assignment
systems. These systems enable globally unique and universally interoperable
identifiers for the benefit of the Internet and its users.
paramount concern is the stability of these services.
includes both operational and policymaking functions. "
The ICANN note specifies that ICANN's
operations (in broad summary) cover:
1. General operational functions (such as IP address
allocation, maintaining the DNS root zone file).
gTLD administrative functions (such as registrar
accreditation, supervising the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy).
3. ccTLD administrative functions (such
as requests for delegation and
4. Policy coordination for
5. Policymaking including:
address and AS number allocation,
5.2 ccTLD global policy
5.3. Protocol numbering via the IANA
5.4 gTLD registry-level policies.
The Names Council specified the following existing functions of
ICANN where the NC would like ICANN to do better in
carrying them out:
- ccTLD administrative functions
- root server administration
- Registry and Registrar contract enforcement with respect to
intellectual property and other existing conditions.
Recommendation 1: Create clearly delineated
divisions within ICANN responsible for the administration of certain
technical functions. This would establish separate staff functions
for policy and operational functions.
The Names Council felt that the greatest danger of mission
creep lay in the areas of security and consumer protection. The creation of
infrastructure for at-large membership was also mentioned; however, it was
also argued that this topic should not be discussed alongside with ICANN's
Recommendation 2. ICANN's functions should not be
extended beyond what is outlined in the note "What ICANN Does"