Re: [soac-mapo] Re: some source documents
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Re: some source documents
- From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 10:45:45 +0200
On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> We all volunteered for this group.
> Do we have a charter?
> Do we have a mission?
After the GAC-board meeting there were various hall conversations involving
Bertrand, Thomas, and Suzanne from GAC and Milton, Wolfgang and myself and I'm
sure others (I'm only mentioning the ones I know of directly) about how to go
forward in a situation where GAC is saying they don't like MAPO, don't have an
alternative, and don't see that it falls to them to provide one. An obvious
idea that came up was to form a cross-community group and think through the
options. Nothing was agreed of course and GAC didn't get into it in the
communiqué, but Bertrand felt that there was likely to be support in the GAC
for doing that. So when the Council met the following day, I pointed out that
such a group might come together and suggested that in light of the changed
circumstances it might be useful for the GNSO to have some discussions and see
if we can come to a collective view in order to interface with any such process
more effectively. Chuck said fine who's interested, Glen threw up a list, and
here we are. So this is a pretty nascent dialogue with no formally defined
charter or mission as yet.
I checked in with Bertrand again after Glen launched the list and he said he'd
be raising the issue on the GAC list soon and anticipated discussion in the
SO/AC Chairs as well. His sense remained that GAC would be favorable to a
cross-community group. So I suppose as a first step it'd be useful to get an
update on any GAC and SO/AC Chair discussions.
> Are we here to provide arguments that the MAPO solution in DAGv4 is
> sufficient and shouldn't be messed with?
Presumably we'd want to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various options,
and if you/others want to lay out why you think MAPO is the least bad that'd be
If nothing else, at least maybe we can reach consensus that the proper acronym
is indeed MAPO, not MOPO, before that meme takes hold...
> Or do we have some other purpose?
> I admit I was rather shaken up when GAC resurrected the subject with the
> lines that they did not understand the solutions and had not been consulted.
> I know I consulted them at the time, I can't say anything about why they
> don't understand it now.
The reversal was puzzling in various ways. On the US side, Becky told me that
the State Department's legal advisor had not been consulted prior and that
whomever Obama has in that position said hold on this doesn't work. It
surprises me to think Bush's wasn't consulted, but one imagines if s/he'd been
the answer might have been different. Milton did a nice blog bit with a
different explanation. Just small data points. No idea what explains turn
around in EU or others.
> So while I think it might be useful to try and explain why the DAGv4 MAPO
> solution is sufficient, I do not know if that is our mission.
> I should note that my arguments for DAGv4 being both necessary and sufficient
> are my own and not supported by NCSG. We have not polled on it lately and I
> expect we would be of mixed viewpoint. At the time that the new GTLD
> recommendations were voted on, NCUC was very much against the MAPO
> recommendations and made no secret of it.
A lot of the NCUC-related material from back then is still on Robin's site
http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/icann/gtlds/ although it appears that
http://www.keep-the-core-neutral.org/ has gone to the dogs. I don't know where
ALAC's been on this, Evan can presumably provide pointers.
> Oh yeah, one other question: do we have wiki space to start stashing the
> reference materials?
Would be useful.