On 20/01/2016 14:04, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
First I believe the key principles of the 3rd draft remain acceptable :
And most importantly, regarding the discussion about "voluntary commitments", as Avri points out, we might have a way forward if we were to agree that *the scope of acceptable commitments in any agreement should be defined by policy* (with all the related process safeguards, including bottom up nature as well as advisory inputs), instead of implementation. Then it would be up to the policy makers to define whether eligibility conditions are appropriate or not and should be enforced, whether a specific form of stakeholder consultation or governance is acceptable, etc.
What you are proposing here, Matthew, is that we abandon basic, constitutional mission limitations and allow any policy to dictate ICANN's mission. Not acceptable, sorry. It misses the whole point of having a defined and limited mission.
If that were what Mathieu were proposing then I would also object, but I didn't read him as meaning that. Policy is also required to remain within the scope of the Mission. So long as that principle remains inviolate, I can warmly support Mathieu's proposal (or Mathieu's proposed implementation of Holly's recommended way out of this discussion, or however you want to characterise it). -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA