[CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Tue Dec 1 15:31:19 UTC 2015


On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:17:17AM -0500, David Post wrote:
> More importantly, if that's what "grandfathering the existing agreements"
> doesn't mean, what does it mean? What is it accomplishing?  What is its
> point?  If my interpretation is wrong (as everyone is reassuring me it is),
> what is the correct interpretation?

I believe the point of it is to say that, _even if_ the new mission
text somehow creates an incompatibility with something ICANN did, that
past action cannot be appealed under the new mission text.  My memory
of how it got added was that during one of the meetings, the
possibility that the new text could be used that way was mooted, and
nobody wanted that.  I think this was captured in the minutes.

I think it's correct to say that, whatever consensus we are coming to,
it will not do to try to relitigate past decisions (regardless of how
we feel about them; for the purposes of this conversation I refuse to
have an opinion about whether ICANN should have undertaken every
single thing it did in the past).

Best regards,

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list