[CCWG-ACCT] Recommendation 5 - Mission - 3rd reading conclusions

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Mon Jan 25 23:18:27 UTC 2016


On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 07:04:50PM +0100, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Whether ICANN should remain in the position of ratifying global policies is
> a question that I believe is out of scope for this WG.

I wish to be perfectly clear that I don't have a strong preference on
how this wording comes out, except that it be acceptable to the NRO.

The worry about "whether ICANN should remain in this position",
however, was part of what motivated the earlier IAB concern about the
relevant language for protocol parameters.  Once language is in the
mission, it will be hard to change should the MoU end.  I think that's
why the issue is in scope for this CCWG.  But again, I am most
focussed on nailing down something that everyone can live with,
because we are rapidly running out of daylight.

Best regards,


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list