[Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
jjs at dyalog.net
Tue Oct 21 17:02:22 UTC 2014
In addition, in this context the use of the word "authorized" is blunt.
----- Mail original -----
De: "joseph alhadeff" <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
À: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques' 'Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>, "internal-cg at icann.org" <internal-cg at icann.org>
Envoyé: Mardi 21 Octobre 2014 18:09:02
Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Revised Text on Question about ICG and ICANN board
Milton it is not a question of a legal prohibition to saying that we
don't believe that ICANN should have any right to edit our syubmission
in any way beyond the normal comment process. You phrasing is in the
nature of a statement of legal fact. I am questioning its accuracy as
phrased not the answer to the question on which we are in complete
On 10/21/2014 12:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> @Joe +1,
>> I don't see how the charter of the ICG had constrain the Board of
>> That's why I suggested wording which would state an expectation.
>> Legally, we can't say more.
> What? Legally, we can say anything we like. There are no legal restrictions on speech applicable here.
> The assertion that the board is not authorized to change our recommendations is NOT the same thing as asserting that our charter legally constrains the board of ICANN. That of course would be ridiculous.
> We are simply stating that neither the community nor the NTIA nor anything else has authorized ICANN to amend our proposal.
More information about the Internal-cg