Describing one group as "Those ... who believe in mission limitations" sets up a false and subtly pejorative discussion. It's not unlike certain political groups in the US that describe themselves as "patriots," with the subtle implication that those who disagree with them are less patriotic or even traitorous.
We all believe in mission limitations. The boundaries of those limitations is where viewpoints differ. And I would submit that ever more aggressive attempts to constrain ICANN's mission (rather than merely to clarify it) and to draw circles with more and more of ICANN's current activities "out of bounds" are responsible for a significant amount of this "delay" (if that's what one wants to call it). We have just had glimpses of upcoming attempts to significantly rewrite the AGB, using the "new" Mission/Scope/Core Values as a sword (or perhaps a machete) to do so. It is this Trojan Horse aspect of the Mission/Scope/Core Values changes that is most troubling. At a "mob sit-down," everyone pulls out all their weapons and places them on the table (at least in the movies) -- that's transparency. This group is far less transparent Although a few of the intended uses of the M/S/CV changes have been fairly well revealed, there still seem to be many "concealed weapons" hidden in the M/S/CV by various parties, with new ones barely glimpsed from time to time. Assuming these survive implementation, we are in for a ground war of significant proportions once these changes are made effective in the ICANN Bylaws.
Greg