HR activists take note: A review of the draft bylaws on the mission, core values and commitments

[Stephanie Perrin]

No kidding, and beware mission creep in the light of what is going on 
with the WHO2 review.  Writing is on the wall, they have even (finally) 
had to grant a couple of waivers on the 2013 requirements.  They (LEAS 
and IP lawyers) want broader scope /now/.
Stephanie P
On 2016-04-06 12:39, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>>  From the discussion on the CCWG call we just had, it sounds like the solution
>> is for the base contract for gTLDS and the RAA to be changed.
>> In terms of the gTLD contract this is something that the current gTLD
>> subsequent procedures should take up as a policy issue.
> That is NOT a "solution". That is a way for the mission limitations to be eradicated for most of the industry. If the GNSO has to specifically make a policy that changes the RA and the RAA then those who want ICANN to stray from its mission win. The default value should be that THEY have to pass policies
>
>> If the PDP decides to change the base contract and PICS are outside of the
>> mission, then the contract that the PDP recommends could not include PICS.
>>
>> Not sure how to handle the change to the RAA in this case, but it sounds like
>> that would need to be changed , so the next time a new RAA was
>> introduced, then the grandfathering would end.
> This is unacceptable.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160406/56c1755f/attachment.htm>