[CCWG-ACCT] what ICANN can't regulate (was Re: Board comments on the Mission statement)

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 20 Nov 2015, at 20:28, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:

>> I do not understand why you think this language is "dangerous."
> 
> Because it doesn't appear to be possible to write it without it
> covering some things that it should not cover.  If we could, we
> wouldn't be having this very long discussion about it.

Not so: the length of our discussion is initially caused by the fact that people here have differing requirements and priorities, and we're trying to fashion a compromise we can all live with. And because for at least three stakeholder groups with differing views, this issue has primary salience: it implicates a key redline for which an unacceptable outcome would likely cause them to oppose transition outright, so simply giving up without an agreement is impossible, we must keep at it. 

And unfortunately the discussion is lengthened further by the proliferation of straw men.