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
*******************************