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:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

-----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.