I am increasingly becoming uneasy with the implications of several of our proposed changes/powers. I would be happy to be convinced that I am missing something and there is no need to be concerned. The particular interaction that I am thinking of is: - the new requirement that "policies" be developed through a bottom-up multistakeholder process; - the fact that we never really define "policy" and therefore what is a policy is subject to interpretation; - we have contracts which are made up of a combination of historical language, negotiated terms, Consensus Policy and yes, terms which at some point in time may have been included through more arcane processes; - some issues which could reasonably considered "policy", such as PICs in registry agreements, according to the Registry agreement Spec 1, are NOT SUBJECT to Consensus Policy; - most contractual provisions are also outside of the limited subjects in Spec 1 (Registry) / Spec 4 (Registrar); - The IRP which can judge something to be outside of ICANN's mission; When you put these together, we have the situation that an IRP could judge that some contractual provision is "policy", was not developed through a bottom-up MS process, and therefore violates the Bylaws. Yet such terms are not eligible for a bottom-up MS process, or predate such processes. I find this EXTREMELY problematic. Alan