[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Well, how about:

"… renewals would normally not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN"

We should bear in mind that for future reference, it will not be possible to define the scope and mission of ICANN in such a way that would always exclude any new terms.
Indeed, much of the hype about new gTLDs and an eventual additional programme (¿in 2020?) seems to be based on opportunities for innovation which cannot yet be defined.

Much as I doubt the long-term viability of many of the innovative gTLDs, it is quite possible that there will be cases in the future where the ICANN Board, the Community, or even the GAC will have views about what are or are not necessary 'new terms':

CW


On 07 May 2016, at 14:12, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Milton,
> Neither Bernard nor your edits are responding to the concerns
> You proposed
> Quote
> as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN
> Unquote
> What does it mean pls
> Kavouss
> 
> 2016-05-06 20:16 GMT+02:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:
> Bernard
> 
> One quick comment.
> 
> I was pleased to see the renewals of the RA/RAA flagged in 2.2. I think the comment is attempting to do the right thing, but I find the language phrased in a way that seems to create an unintentional ambiguity.
> 
>  
> 
> Under 2.2 you say:
> 
>  
> 
> “…as long as these renewals did not include any new term based on previously agreed language. Any new terms would however need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”
> 
>  
> 
> I do not understand the function or intent of the words “based on previously agreed language.” If the language is previously agreed, how can it be a new term? Did you mean to simply say:
> 
>  
> 
> “…as long as these renewals did not include any new terms. Any new terms would need to be within the scope and mission of ICANN.”
> 
>  
> 
> --MM
> 
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Turcotte
> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 11:36 AM
> To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] CCWG-Accountability - Draft Response to Public Consultation on New Bylaws - 72 hour consultation for the CCWG-Accountability
> 
>  
> 
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> As discussed on the call this week please find attached the draft response of the CCWG-Accountability to the public consultation on the new Bylaws.
> 
>  
> 
> This document was developed from the meeting notes of our call on May 3rd and reviewed by the leadership team.
> 
>  
> 
> As discussed at that meeting we are providing the CCWG-Accountability a 72 hour comment period on this draft response 
> 
> beginning 1800UTC Friday May 6th and closing 1800UTC Monday May 9th.
> 
>  
> 
> Please post your comments to the main CCWG-Accountability list, used to send this email, and please use the same SUBJECT to 
> 
> facilitate tracking of comments (or simply REPLY to this email).
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you
> 
>  
> 
> Bernard Turcotte
> 
> ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160507/c0279dab/attachment.html>