[Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Adherence to human rights within ICANN's mission will interfere the
allocation of a protocol or an IPv6 block?

Come on!?!?!

el

On 2015-10-07 15:59, Ram Mohan wrote:
> 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.
[...]