[CCWG-ACCT] A modest attempt to advance the "Mission scoping" discussion

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 20/01/2016 14:04, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> First I believe the key principles of the 3rd draft remain
>> acceptable :
>>> And most importantly, regarding the discussion about "voluntary 
>>> commitments", as Avri points out, we might have a way forward if
>>> we were to agree that *the scope of acceptable commitments in any
>>> agreement should be defined by policy* (with all the related
>>> process safeguards, including bottom up nature as well as
>>> advisory inputs), instead of implementation. Then it would be up
>>> to the policy makers to define whether eligibility conditions are
>>> appropriate or not and should be enforced, whether a specific 
>>> form of stakeholder consultation or governance is acceptable,
>>> etc.

> What you are proposing here, Matthew, is that we abandon basic,
> constitutional mission limitations and allow any policy to dictate
> ICANN's mission. Not acceptable, sorry. It misses the whole point of
> having a defined and limited mission.

If that were what Mathieu were proposing then I would also object, but I
didn't read him as meaning that.

Policy is also required to remain within the scope of the Mission. So
long as that principle remains inviolate, I can warmly support Mathieu's
proposal (or Mathieu's proposed implementation of Holly's recommended
way out of this discussion, or however you want to characterise it).

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA