Jay, 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 recording at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/48348893/ThickWhois-20Sep16.mp3?version=2&modificationDate=1474457205000&api=v2 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. -- Francisco 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 page at https://community.icann.org/display/TWCPI/Thick+Whois+Policy+Implementation 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 decisions. 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. Jay _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
