Folks,
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.
I
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
stage.
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.
In
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.
It
appears that a further discussion of "mission" is needed to support further
work. I would welcome seeing proposed mission ideas.
In
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.
I
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
are. :-)
Regards,
Marilyn
-----Original
Message-----
From: J. Scott Evans
[mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:50
AM
To: NC (list); Philip Sheppard
Subject: Re: [council]
Conclusions to call no on ICANN Evolution
Importance:
High
Philip:
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 position.
Regards.
J. Scott Evans
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:36
AM
Subject: [council] Conclusions to
call no on ICANN Evolution
Council,
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.
Philip
---------------------
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.
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
redelegation).
4. Policy coordination for
infrastructure security.
5. Policymaking including:
5.1. IP
address and AS number allocation,
5.2 ccTLD global policy
coordination,
5.3. Protocol numbering via the IANA
registries,
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"
.