Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:13:44 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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.
|
|
|