Bruce,

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

Hello Malcolm,

>> Reading the Board's message, and yours, I do get a sense that you worry that ICANN may have in the past taken actions for which no legitimate justification could be found within the existing Mission.

Our concern was not so much the mission statement, which we supported, but attempts to craft restrictions on how that statement should be interpreted that may impact the current agreements and legitimate actions in future.

GS: Bruce, unfortunately, you (and the Board) have hit the nail on the head here. This is an attempt to use this process to undermine certain current legitimate activity and valid contracts of ICANN. Furthermore, it's a "proxy battle" in an ongoing policy dispute, and this is an attempt to "put a thumb on the scales" in that dispute by trying to put language into the Bylaws that can be used in that dispute and to invalidate portions of ICANN's contracts.

This has gone beyond replacing the NTIA as a backstop and finding ways for the community to hold ICANN generally more accountable; in that sense, it's (ironically) beyond the scope of the CCWG.

If this goes forward as some would want, how long do you think it will be before the first IRP is filed challenging current ICANN activity using this language as a basis for that challenge?

Greg

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community