As far as I know, ICANN has never said it agrees with that claim.
You can listen to ICANN’s presentation of the issue and proposed way forward in
the latest Thick Whois Implementation Review Team in the first minutes of the
A member of the RySG presents his view starting around minute 18, and around
minute 27, recognizes that having RDAP in the CL&D policy was in response to
community feedback and explains that the Implementation Review Team were in
favor of it, however he later changed his mind.
P.S. The Thick Whois Implementation Review Team (a group of community members
who have been working with the ICANN organization on the CL&D policy) has a
On 9/22/16, 4:00 PM, "regext on behalf of Jay Daley" <regext-boun...@ietf.org
on behalf of j...@nzrs.net.nz> wrote:
OK, I’ll spell it out - the claim being made, and apparently upheld by
ICANN, is that ICANN staff improperly added staff decisions onto a policy
achieved under community consensus in order to get the board to approve those
Whether or not ICANN has the power to make these decisions is irrelevant -
the issue is the inappropriate mechanism by which they were made, which a) is
not consensus driven as all ICANN policies should be unless there’s a very good
reason for the board to override that; and b) was not explicit in telling the
board that so that they could make an informed decision.
regext mailing list