<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Bruce,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Bruce Tonkin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello Malcolm,<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
>> Reading the Board's message, and yours, I do get a sense that you worry that ICANN may have in the past taken actions for which no legitimate justification could be found within the existing Mission.<br>
<br>
</span>Our concern was not so much the mission statement, which we supported, but attempts to craft restrictions on how that statement should be interpreted that may impact the current agreements and legitimate actions in future.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">GS: Bruce, unfortunately, you (and the Board) have hit the nail on the head here. This is an attempt to use this process to undermine certain current legitimate activity and valid contracts of ICANN. Furthermore, it's a "proxy battle" in an ongoing policy dispute, and this is an attempt to "put a thumb on the scales" in that dispute by trying to put language into the Bylaws that can be used in that dispute and to invalidate portions of ICANN's contracts.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">This has gone beyond replacing the NTIA as a backstop and finding ways for the community to hold ICANN generally more accountable; in that sense, it's (ironically) beyond the scope of the CCWG.</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">If this goes forward as some would want, how long do you think it will be before the first IRP is filed challenging current ICANN activity using this language as a basis for that challenge?</div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Greg</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>