At 05:34 PM 9/1/2015, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >SNIP >DP: I get it that there are lots of governments out there that want >to dictate policy here, and that we're trying to make sure that >doesn't happen. I think an ENFORCEABLE requirement that the Board >can only implement consensus policies relating to the >security/stability of the DNS is going to be the only real >protection against it happening, regardless of the voting allocation >formulas and/or the provisions regarding GAC advice. > >MM: What if there _is_ a rough consensus among the active >constellation of actors in the ICANN regime that it should do >something that is outside its mandate? There is, e.g., often >consensus and/or a democratic majority in the U.S. that an unpopular >speaker's freedom of expression rights should be suppressed. That's precisely what the IRP is for, no? I know most of the discussion has stressed the IRP's role in constraining the Board, and that is as it should be - but if the corporation acts outside of its mandate, the IRP is/should be empowered to declare the action invalid, even if it is supported by consensus. [Put differently: the IRP constrains the community, too ...] I think that's clear from the current language in the proposal, though I could be wrong about that (in which case I'd recommend that it be fixed). David ******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************