Re: [council] Re: ICANN's mission

["J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>]

Cary:

I have pondered your comments for several days.  First, let me emphasize
that my earlier response to you was in no way meant to suggest that today's
reality negates past events.  My comments were only meant to respond to your
statement that, "Although the latter concern certainly deserves mention in
present context, there is a large segment of the Internet user community
that would not regard this as the primary attribute of a well-functioning
Net."  My comments were only meant to point out that, in today's
environment, a "well-functioning Net" requires the assumption of far more
responsibility than did a "well functioning Net" some 8 to 10 years ago.

As far as your comments regarding the mission statement, I do not see the
benefit to qualifying the term "policy" with the term "high-level."  In my
opinion, this type of word parsing will only lead to future disputes as to
what is or is not "high-level policy."  On the other hand, I have no
objection to revising the suggested statement to incorporate your comments
relating to the need to acknowledge the "public benefit" aspect of ICANN's
mission.  To this end, I would recommend the following:

ICANN's mission is to coordinate technical and policy functions of the DNS
in order to promote a safe, stable and commercially viable domain name
system, promote competition, and achieve broad representation of global
Internet communities, all for the benefit of the public.

If this wording is insufficient to capture your concerns, I would invite you
to suggest wording that you think better expresses your view on the aspect
to the proposed mission.

J. Scott Evans

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cary Karp" <ck@nic.museum>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 3:41 AM
Subject: [council] Re: ICANN's mission


> Quoting J. Scott:
>
> > In my opinion, the argument that "the Internet and DNS were
> > purring away like kittens before notions of commercial viability
> > entered into the discussion" reflects both a naivete and
> > completely unrealistic view of the situation as it exists today.
>
> Are you suggesting that past events are negated by subsequent
> development?
>
> > The Internet and the DNS have evolved substantially from their
> > original "experimental" roots.
>
> I don't think that the NC would be demonstrating its expertise by
> dismissing the Internet as it was when operated by and for the
> research community as an experiment. To be sure, the circumstances
> in which the Internet is used have since evolved massively but,
> unless I have missed something, ICANN acts to ensure the continuity
> of the original protocol basis for the areas of Internet operation
> for which it responsible.
>
> > This fact is clearly acknowledged in the Green Paper, the White
> > Paper and the MOU. It is this very fact that drove the DoC to
> > require an adjustment to the administration of the DNS.
>
> The Internet is not redefined by recognizing the need for extending
> the scope of its administrative framework.
>
> > And, for this reason, this very fact should be explicitly
> > acknowledged in ICANN's mission statement.
>
> ICANN's mission statement needs to recognize many concerns. Those
> relating to business are among them but not alone among them. I
> don't believe that the NC would be maximizing the utility of its
> contribution to the current process by failing to recognize the full
> spectrum of concerns and/or by neglecting the needs of any other
> segment of the impacted community
>
> /Cary
>
>