On 4 May 2010, at 11:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> The message this public comment has to convey, and convey strongly to ICANN, is that they lost a case on the merits and SHOULD comply with it. If they do not, it shows that the accountability mechanism they have touted is not real. They may have the legal right to do so but it is very bad for ICANN, for us, and for accountability. 


i agree and whatever the reasons for it not being binding (i have not studied the origin of the mechanism), we want to say that there is an accountability reason for accepting the resolution even if it is not binding.


> 
> So your claim that the statement breeds "confusion about what sort of process this appeals mechanism is supposed to be" is true in some sense, but that is quite intentional.

ok

> Only it is not "confusion" I am breeding but higher expectations about what we can and should expect from this organization. 

ok

> 
> 
> That is in some sense a separate debate

and is it a discussion we want to start with this statement?  if we do, it may take a bit more context and more words and might just lose the point we want to make - put .xxx into the root now.

the larger issue might be a good one for a well developed statement to the Accountability and Transparency RT.

a.


a.