Milton - you are referring to the GAC Communique from Singapore. It can be discussed, but its already there J

Elise

Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Sendt: 5. mars 2015 12:52
Til: Lindeberg, Elise; Martin Boyle; CWG Stewardship
Kopi: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org
Emne: RE: [CWG-Stewardship] Principles and Criteria that Should Underpin Decisions on the Transition of NTIA Stewardship: New Draft

Elise

I know it is an important issue for GAC, but it is also an important issue for the global Internet community. As part of that, I don’t think the GAC’s language here is acceptable:

, nothing in the FOIWG report should be read to limit or constrain applicable law and governmental decisions, or the IANA operator´s ability to act in line with a request made by the relevant government.

Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I would have to challenge the statement that there should be no limits on a government’s demands and that IANA must passively respond to _any_ request made by the relevant government. Doesn’t this contradict RFC 1591, which makes the ccTLD operator a trustee for _both_ the national and the global internet community. I think the reason for this is that people did not want to make a ccTLD a political football that changes with any change in local political fortunes. One can respect national sovereignty over policy but one must also respect one’s obligations to the global internet community.