Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Please participate - another CWG Rec 6 Poll on Issue 5

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 13 September 2010 00:42, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Again, I object to these questions. They make no sense if one believes
> that the DRSP should not make recommendations. This has the Board voting on
> a DRSP decision, and most of us have agreed that we don’t want that – we
> want a direct Board vote to eliminate and application based on an objection
>

At the same time, there is an intent (that I'd thought had achieved
consensus) that the Board could contract experts to provide some outside
expertise on issues that it could choose to accept or reject on its own.

To me there's a big conceptual gap between an expert advisory panel and a
DSRP, but everyone seems hellbent on using the term here because it's used
elsewhere, even though the purpose of the expert review is different from
the actual DSRP functions described elsewhere in the DAG. But I digress...

I thought that the process was: (1) or (2) or (3)  and then (4)

1a) Body submits objection to GAC or ALAC to get community-wide support
1b) if GAC/ALAC agree on universalism of the objection, they pass it onto
the Board

2a) Body submits objection to Independent Objector
2b) IO performs Quick Look function
2c) If objection passes Quick Look, IO assists objection registration of
objection

3a) Objector files objection directly to ICANN
3b) ICANN applies Quick Look
3c) If passes Quick Look, ICANN passes objection to the Board

4a) Board, if it wishes, contracts Expert Panel to offer advice on
applicability to Ordre Public and other principles of intl law
4b) Board votes on acceptability of string, super-majority required for
rejection

There is no outside "resolution provider". There is an optional expert
opinion sought, with the ultimate responsibility being the Board's to act on
all the input it has received. The intent to call the expert body a DSRP was
for convenience because the term is used elsewhere; apparently we get a bulk
discount for using an acronym multiple times, even where it's not
appropriate.

- Evan





>
>
> *From:* owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 12, 2010 4:53 PM
> *To:* Chuck Gomes; Ken Stubbs; Robin Gross
>
> *Cc:* Margie Milam; soac-mapo
> *Subject:* [soac-mapo] Please participate - another CWG Rec 6 Poll on
> Issue 5
>
>
>
> As requested by Chuck, please complete the following doodle poll in
> relation to issue 5 (Threshold for Board decisions to reject an application
> based on objections): http://www.doodle.com/6mnkzyxcxupa5pwh. *Please
> complete the poll at the latest by Monday 13 September at 17.00 UTC.
>
> *Thanks,
>
> Marika
>
> On 12/09/10 22:38, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I request that we create a separate poll with these two question:
> 1.      Should there be a higher threshold for Board rejection of a string
> that the third party panel recommended be delegated?
>
> 2.      Should there be a higher threshold for Board approval of a string
> that the third party panel recommended not be delegated?
>
>
> There are probably other possible questions as well, but a poll on these
> should give us enough to communicate some level of support and we can decide
> on our language reporting the results on our call tomorrow.
>
> Let me encourage everyone to be patient with each other and to assume the
> best instead of the worst.  Please communicate issues like  this but also
> understand that all of us are working extra hours with a compressed time
> schedule.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> *From:* owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx<owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 12, 2010 4:22 PM
> *To:* Ken Stubbs; Robin Gross
> *Cc:* Margie Milam; soac-mapo; Marika Konings
> *Subject:* RE: [soac-mapo] Please participate - doodle poll CWG Rec 6
> Recommendations
>
> Sorry.  I have been traveling to Vilnius with limited access.  Please
> answer this question as worded and we will handle the separate questions on
> another poll.
>
> Marika – Please send out a separate poll with this one separated into two
> questions if possible.  If that doesn’t work, we will try to resolve in our
> call Monday.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> *From:* owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx<owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Ken Stubbs
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 12, 2010 1:48 PM
> *To:* Robin Gross
> *Cc:* Margie Milam; soac-mapo
> *Subject:* Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - doodle poll CWG Rec 6
> Recommendations
>
> Ken Stubbs wrote:
> It looks like we need additional clarification here. Where is the link to
> the mp3 recording of our last 2 wg meetings ?
>
>
> On 9/12/2010 12:39 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> *Issue:         *Should there be a higher threshold for approving or
> rejecting  third party objections to TLD applications?
>
>
>
> We had consensus of needing a high threshold vote of the board to *deny *a
> tld - but not to disagree with the DRSP.    We have 2 different issues being
> conflated with this rec and they need to be separated for it to be accurate.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2010, at 9:30 AM, Margie Milam wrote:
>
>
> Hi Robin-
>
>
>
> I spent a lot of time looking over everyone’s comments and making a
> judgment call on those items where there were conflicting instructions.
>     You did not waste your time  because your comments were considered
> carefully.     In the items below, other comments were made that seemed to
> conflict with your comments.
>
>
>
>  It is unreasonable for working group members to expect that all of their
> comments would be included…  there were many comments from others that were
> not included in the draft that was  used for the poll.     However, if after
> the poll there is no consensus on these points as written, the language can
> be amended.    The purpose of the poll is simply to serve as a tool to
> facilitate discussions on Monday’s call, and to help finalize the
> recommendations for inclusion in the report.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Margie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx<owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>]
> *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:13 AM
> *To:* soac-mapo
> *Subject:* Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - doodle poll CWG Rec 6
> Recommendations
>
>
>
> I spent several hours on Friday afternoon editing this draft, but these
> edits don't seem to be included in today's draft.
>
>
>
> Some are rather significant concerns that I don't believe we can just
> ignore.
>
>
>
> For example, the wording of Rec. 5 dealing with board decisions to reject /
> deny an application.  Still reads:
>
>
>
> *Issue:         *Should there be a higher threshold for approving or
> rejecting  third party objections to TLD applications?
>
>
>
> When was there a consensus in this group that we wanted to restrict the
> board's decision AT ALL?
>
>
>
> This is the comment I made on Friday in the draft, but is just deleted in
> today's draft with no changes in the wording of Rec. :
>
> [ **** I think the more accurate question here is “what is the threshold of
> board vote needed to approve or reject a new gtld…?”  I don’t believe we
> discussed in sufficient detail (if at all) *any requirement* to restrict a
> board vote to DRSP advice at any voting level.]
>
>
>
> I wish I would have known I was wasting my time editing the draft on
> Friday, as I could have spent my time on paid work instead of volunteering
> for ICANN.  But that is not the point, --> I'd really like someone to show
> me where there was a consensus to draft this Rec. this way (restricting the
> board to DRSP advice at all).
>
>
>
> We had consensus of needing a high threshold vote of the board to *deny *a
> tld - not to disagree with the DRSP.    This is a big mistake in drafting
> that needs to be corrected (not ignored).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2010, at 2:16 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please complete the following doodle poll at
> http://www.doodle.com/m535usqcsehu7bff. You are requested to indicate for
> each recommendation whether you support the recommendation or not. To
> express your support, please put a tick mark. If you do not put a tick mark,
> it means you do not support the recommendation. Please use the attached
> document (Emerging Principles-4.doc) as your reference tool.
>
> This poll will be used as an aid to determine the level of support for each
> recommendation. The results will be discussed at the next meeting on Monday
> 13 September. *Please complete the poll at the latest by Monday 13
> September at 17.00 UTC.
>
> *Thanks,
>
> Marika
>
> <Emerging Principles-4.doc>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
>
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>
> p: +1-415-553-6261   f: +1-415-462-6451
>
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org    e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
>
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org    e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>