The protocol and number communities expect that the naming community not unilaterally require bylaw changes on the organization that includes functions that are critical to what they do without consultation. I don't see why that is something we should object to. -----Original Message----- From: wp4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:wp4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:53 AM To: wp4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Wp4] CCWG - WP4 Poll on referencing existing documents Hi, I do not see this. This is ICANN accountabilty. And the Protocol and Number communities have made it very clear that they are not intersteed in what the Names community does with accountability, or much of anything else the Names community cares about for that matter, as long as we leave them out of it. Also what do you think IANA is doing that related to human rights, as we have had pounded into our heads, they are not making policy, they just perform a clerical function doing what they are told to do by the OCs. avri On 07-Oct-15 05:02, ram.mohan wrote:
Adding something like this has potent impact on IANA, not simply ICANN in a naming and policy function. Also see Sam Eisner's rationale.
Any such suggestion should be run past the IETF and RIRs.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Wp4 mailing list Wp4@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp4