For a lot of us this is very important John. We worked long and hard on a compromise. Throwing it out in the way you describe below feels both dismissive of an important issue and misses an opportunity to provide a little more moral suasion in this exercise. I can tell you that one of the greatest frustrations experienced in the Cira process has been watching it devolve away from trying to support the Open Internet to simply helping good causes of any stripe. EN
On May 5, 2018, at 9:05 PM, John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
Anyway, I don't support this last one because if was done before we had the "in service" verbiage available, and before we worked on Open and Interoperable Internet (not just Open Internet).
I also had problems with that question.
It should be obvious by now that there is no common understanding of what "Open Internet" or any variant of that phrase means, and even if we spent another year trying to define it there is no reason to believe that it would align with ICANN's mission as defined in the bylaws.
Can we drop this time waster, please? If we need to define what we're going to support, cut and paste the text of ICANN's mission from section 1 of the bylaws and be done with it.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ Ccwg-auctionproceeds mailing list Ccwg-auctionproceeds@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-auctionproceeds