Re: [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope
I am not convinced that we should discuss everything ICANN may ever
be doing under the "mission" headline.
According to the definition for mission creep which you seem to use
(and which would be suggested by including the at-large membership
as an example), even staff support for policy development (e.g.,
neutral staff chairs task forces and produces reports) would be
"mission creep", and would be covered by the recommendation.
I believe that, currently, the council should only consider the
"output side" of ICANN's activities, and leave it for later
discussions (which should begin quite soon!) to recommend what else
ICANN should do in order to achieve the "output" expected. These
discussions should, in particular, _not_ be driven primarily by the
question what ICANN does now. Instead, they should focus what ICANN
needs to do to best accomplish its mission.
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
On 2002-03-28 15:40:08 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>From: "Philip Sheppard" <email@example.com>
>To: "NC (list)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: [council] Draft conclusions of NC discussion on ICANN reform - scope
>Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:40:08 +0100
> Thomas, thanks for your comments on mission creep. perhaps you can
> help me here with language. I was trying to find language that showed
> the difference between;
> 1. the at-large concept itself
> 2. the creation of an organisation which would enable at-large
> membership to form and elect representatives.
> I thought that there had been agreement that while (1) was with in the
> current scope/function of ICANN,
> (2) was not currently in the mission of ICANN. And therefore there
> would be mission creep if (2) was added.
> Any suggestions for better language would be appreciated.