[CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Wed Jan 20 10:26:38 UTC 2016
FWIW, I am in full agreement with Avri on this. Though unconnected to the
current subject, as I have indicated in the past, I am not sure the
community powers as proposed in the current 3rd proposal will adequately
respect and the outcome of a PDP. I think an interesting future is in the
making and I just hope our intent of building a better ICANN would be
experienced. Ofcourse the intent is most likely share by all.
On 20 Jan 2016 06:02, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding the conversation ongoing on this list, but
> this seems more like gTLD policy making than clarifying without changing
> the mission. It is almost as if we want to preclude the freedom of the
> GNSO to make bottom up multistakeholder decisions about gTLDs or
> community gTLDs that may be decided upon in the future.
> We are getting into a very murky issue that is still the subject of
> reconsideration, CEP and IRP processes. In fact more all the time.
> I think we are trying to do too much at the last minute with
> manipulation of the mission to meet people's political ideas about what
> ICANN should and should not do. My suggestions is that we go back to
> the wording for draft 3 and just make the minimal changes needed by the
> the IETF and the RIRs and leave discussions about ICANN's mission for
> WS2 or elsewhen - this is a long discussion we are embarking on.
> Personally I am very committed to the policies that the GNSO initiated
> on communities and while I think there is a lot of work to do on them in
> the next PDP, I do not think it is work that is appropriate at this
> point in time for this process. We are supposed to be working on
> accountability not the mission or the gTLD program. but if this is
> going to become a question about what is acceptable in terms of
> communities, their commitments and the contracts they make with ICANN on
> behalf of the communities they intend to serve, I will have a whole lot
> more to say. I am currently saving those arguments for the subsequent
> gTLD PDP, but if those issues need to be fought here and now, I guess I
> am willing.
> Is this part of the WS1 task?
> If so, why?
> I do not think this is part of the requirement for WS1 and transition.
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community