SO: NOT speaking on behalf of any community but as I understand it, the IFO on paper for both communities will be that which they sign their respective agreements with. So far I believe the DUO will be signing with ICANN. MM: Yes, we all know this well, Seun, but they COULD sign with anyone else they want. So ICANN’s role here is contingent, not a permanent and irrevocable part of its mandate. Therefore it should not be in part of its Articles of Incorporation defining its purpose. SO: Is this deletion suggested because that part was not in the proposal that was shipped to the NTIA? MM: That specific wording was not in the proposal, as far as I know. SO: Well it depends on what "public policy" mean in this context as I think when we refer to community developed policies within ICANN, the word public is not part of it. So we say "global policies" this is how they are called within the RIR community as well (better put, global numbers policy or resource policy). I wonder who else makes binding public policies other than government? MM: ICANN does, and the RIRs do. There is no operational distinction between a “global policy” and a “global public policy.” The question is who represents the global public? In multistakeholder institutions, the public is represented directly by their participation in the bottom up process, which includes governments. In governmental institutions, the public is represented by national governments who claim the exclusive right to speak for publics. My point is that governments do have that exclusivity within their jurisdiction. They do not have it outside their jurisdiction. In DNS and IP addressing policy, they are just another stakeholder, albeit the bylaws give them a specific role regarding policy advice.