Truly. Unacceptable!  Agree with MM 100%.

Regards,

McTim

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> 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.



-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel