<p dir="ltr">On Dec 16, 2015 18:31, "Andrew Sullivan" <<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 04:43:35PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:.<br>
><br>
> The difference in the board's text is the replacement of "mission"<br>
> with "scope", I think. <br>
><br>
SO: I note that the scope in board's wording was preceded with "....in servicing it's *mission*, the scope of ICANN...."</p>
<p dir="ltr">With that preceding text in mind, I don't really think the scope has been disconnected from the mission. Hence the mission is still very much dependent on the scope.</p>
<p dir="ltr"> I really don't get why it's important to the<br>
> board, and I think I'd need to think some about whether there are any<br>
> implications. </p>
<p dir="ltr">SO: +1 As someone said, perhaps it's for further clarity and simplicity. Nevertheless, so long as "covering body with coverlet" and "covering coverlet with body" implies the same thing then one should accommodate it.</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
What I like (and I think what the IAB likes) about the<br>
> CCWG text is how limited it makes the mission. (I've argued all along<br>
> that the explicit additional limitations people have wanted are<br>
> unnecessary, as you know.) I cannot tell whether the board's language<br>
> is an attempt to widen the mission. <br>
><br>
SO: Based on my explanation above, I am yet to understand how mission widening can happen since it's already limited by the scope referenced. Unless there is reason to believe that the referenced scope is in itself already expanded.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Perhaps there is legal perspective to this than just looking at it linguistically/grammatically. Maybe it's something that can be pushed to legal team for advice on implications (if any).</p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
If it is, then it's anyone's<br>
> guess whether the IAB would support it. (I guess "no", to be honest,<br>
> but it's just a guess.)<br>
><br>
SO: Sounds fair enough as it will defeat the purpose in the first place.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards<br>
PS: I have not had time to read the detailed board comment. Only relying on the text shared by Becky.<br>
><br>
><br>
> A<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Sullivan<br>
> <a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</p>