[Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents

[Ram Mohan]

The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not
unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes
functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't
see why that is something we should object to.


-----Original Message-----
From: wp4-bounces at icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM
To: wp4 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents

Hi,

I do not see this.  This is ICANN accountabilty.  And the Protocol and
Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in
what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else
the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them
out of it.

Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we
have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just
perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs.

avri


On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
> Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN 
> in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
>
> Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
Wp4 mailing list
Wp4 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4