[CCWG-ACCT] Minority statements inclusion in report

[Mueller, Milton L]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Why not?  As nearly as I can tell, what we are talking about is a case where
> ICANN the corporation interprets the mission in ways quite far out of line
> with what the community thinks is appropriate (and also, I think it should be

Andrew: if this argument is taken to its logical conclusion it means that we don't need a mission limitation at all. 
We can always just rely on removing the board to prevent ICANN from doing anything wrong. 

Obviously that doesn't work. What you don't seem to understand is that in most, possibly all, cases, ICANN will stray from its mission not because of its board but because some stakeholder faction wants them to. That stakeholder faction might be large enough to prevent a sacking of the board. It might even be a temporary majority. The point of having mission limitations is precisely this: to prevent capture by a long term or temporary majority that can expand the mission.

The limitation we are proposing is analogous to a constitutional limitation enforced by a court, capable of overriding actions by the executive or legislative branches _regardless of how popular those actions are_. Imagine where the state of freedom of expression would be if the U.S. did not have its first amendment or Europe its convention on fundamental rights. Rights violations occur often when majorities want to violate rights to address what they see at the time as a pressing problem. To say "oh, you can replace the executive and legislature when they violate rights" is missing the point about constitutional limitations. 

Hope you understand this issue better now. I know it's more of a legal/political/policy distinction 

--MM