[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Recommendation 5 - Mission Statement
Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
Thu Feb 4 08:55:19 UTC 2016
>> I would therefore suggest the following adjustment:
>> (b) ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and
enforce agreements with contracted parties (including PIC
Specifications) in service of its Mission.
>> Is that agreeable?
Fine by me. It is not intended to be final Bylaw language and the topic of PICs is actually redundant as it is part of agreements, but we added it for the avoidance of doubt.
>> Whether you call that "regulation" or come up with some other term doesn't matter: it's still an abuse of ICANN's position, and must be prevented.
> Rationale on Grandfathering:
>> i) to ensure that the new accountability provisions could be used to hold you accountable for previous violations as well as future ones; or
Well assuming we haven't changed our mission. If an IRP panel finds that we have entered into an agreement that is outside of our mission - then it seems reasonable that we must address that.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community