[CCWG-ACCT] Implications of bottom-up "policy" requirement

[Alan Greenberg]

I am increasingly becoming uneasy with the implications of several of 
our proposed changes/powers. I would be happy to be convinced that I 
am missing something and there is no need to be concerned.

The particular interaction that I am thinking of is:

- the new requirement that "policies" be developed through a 
bottom-up multistakeholder process;

- the fact that we never really define "policy" and therefore what is 
a policy is subject to interpretation;

- we have contracts which are made up of a combination of historical 
language, negotiated terms, Consensus Policy and yes, terms which at 
some point in time may have been included through more arcane processes;

- some issues which could reasonably considered "policy", such as 
PICs in registry agreements, according to the Registry agreement Spec 
1, are NOT SUBJECT to Consensus Policy;

- most contractual provisions are also outside of the limited 
subjects in Spec 1 (Registry) / Spec 4 (Registrar);

- The IRP which can judge something to be outside of ICANN's mission;

When you put these together, we have the situation that an IRP could 
judge that some contractual provision is "policy", was not developed 
through a bottom-up MS process, and therefore violates the Bylaws. 
Yet such terms are not eligible for a bottom-up MS process, or 
predate such processes.

I find this EXTREMELY problematic.

Alan