After 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
How 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, revote, etc.
appears that a further discussion of "mission" is needed to support further
work. I would welcome seeing proposed mission
the 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 that status.
must 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
From: J. Scott Evans
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:50
To: NC (list); Philip Sheppard
Subject: Re: [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 call.
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
J. Scott Evans
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002
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 call.
DRAFT version 2
Scope and mission of
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
ICANN's paramount concern is the stability of these services.
ICANN's role 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).
2. 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 functions.
Recommendation 2. ICANN's
functions should not be extended beyond what is outlined in the note
"What ICANN Does"