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.