<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 20 Jan 2016 06:02, "Avri Doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the conversation ongoing on this list, but<br>
this seems more like gTLD policy making than clarifying without changing<br>
the mission. It is almost as if we want to preclude the freedom of the<br>
GNSO to make bottom up multistakeholder decisions about gTLDs or<br>
community gTLDs that may be decided upon in the future.<br>
<br>
We are getting into a very murky issue that is still the subject of<br>
reconsideration, CEP and IRP processes. In fact more all the time.<br>
<br>
I think we are trying to do too much at the last minute with<br>
manipulation of the mission to meet people's political ideas about what<br>
ICANN should and should not do. My suggestions is that we go back to<br>
the wording for draft 3 and just make the minimal changes needed by the<br>
the IETF and the RIRs and leave discussions about ICANN's mission for<br>
WS2 or elsewhen - this is a long discussion we are embarking on.<br>
<br>
Personally I am very committed to the policies that the GNSO initiated<br>
on communities and while I think there is a lot of work to do on them in<br>
the next PDP, I do not think it is work that is appropriate at this<br>
point in time for this process. We are supposed to be working on<br>
accountability not the mission or the gTLD program. but if this is<br>
going to become a question about what is acceptable in terms of<br>
communities, their commitments and the contracts they make with ICANN on<br>
behalf of the communities they intend to serve, I will have a whole lot<br>
more to say. I am currently saving those arguments for the subsequent<br>
gTLD PDP, but if those issues need to be fought here and now, I guess I<br>
am willing.<br>
<br>
Is this part of the WS1 task?<br>
If so, why?<br>
I do not think this is part of the requirement for WS1 and transition.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><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>
</blockquote></div>