On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:07:46PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
Andrew: if this argument is taken to its logical conclusion it means that we don't need a mission limitation at all.
In principle, of course, one could indeed use only one mechanism to prevent all abuses. But we don't do that because it's better to try to cut things off as early as possible. The existing text does do that, and all the hypothetical scenarios so far proposed are cases where someone decides on purpose to try to misinterpret the plain English meaning of what we've intended. (It's of course possible that when the actual bylaw text is written, something will be missing. I was assuming we were relying on ourselves to make sure that didn't happen.)
What you don't seem to understand is that in most, possibly all, cases, ICANN will stray from its mission not because of its board but because some stakeholder faction wants them to.
I understand that perfectly well.
That stakeholder faction might be large enough to prevent a sacking of the board. It might even be a temporary majority. The point of having mission limitations is precisely this: to prevent capture by a long term or temporary majority that can expand the mission.
Yes, I agree, this is a risk. I don't see how you make something that is entirely resistant to this. For instance, since we're talking about hypothetical scenarios without any details, I can imagine a case where a large enough majority shows up and can overturn this fundamental bylaw too.
Rights violations occur often when majorities want to violate rights to address what they see at the time as a pressing problem.
Yes. Like in all the "five eyes" countries today, every one of which had laws on the books prohibiting the very actions the various governments took. It is the vigilence of the community and its willingness to insist on good behaviour that will protect us, not perfect rules. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com