RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Risking the possibility of intervening where I shouldn't in my role as
chair, I would like to suggest that it might be best to not worry about
whether this is policy or not and to also assume that the Board will
likely receive comments from the GAC and respond to them regardless of
whether we consider this policy or not.  In fact, to assume otherwise
seems to me to be contrary to this CWG's objectives and our charter.  

That said, if others agree with me and we believe that it is going to
happen anyway, why not include it in our recommendation.  I will let
Cheryl and other At-Large members comment regarding encouraging the same
opportunity as an Advisory Committee.

Just for the record, I personally have no problem with encouraging the
GAC comments and Board response but I do not say that to attempt to
influence the group's decision.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:49 AM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Well we are back to the discussion of whether such a decision is a
> matter of policy or not.  Where does policy making end and
> implementation begin.  Personally I have always found this boundary
> fuzzy ad find that many implementation decisions are indeed policy
> making decisions.  In fact isn't the issue of this entire group such
an
> instance - i.e we are discussing the policy implications of an
> implementation plan.
> 
> The Bylaws refer to 'public policy matters'.  I doubt we are in a
> position to define the decision on allowing or prohibiting a name as
> not being a 'public policy matter' that either the GAC or the ALAC may
> have an opinion on.
> 
> But perhaps I am wrong and the GAC ad ALAC do not consider such
> decisions public policy matters.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 15 Sep 2010, at 12:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> with the assumption that if the appellant is either the GAC or
ALAC,
> the
> >> board would then discuss their decision with them as required in
the
> >> bylaw currently for GAC should they be requested to do so by the
AC.
> >>
> >
> > I do not agree with that. The GAC has input rights and a "right to
> get an explanation of why the Board diverged from its advice" with
> respect to POLICY MAKING, not implementations. Individual TLD
decisions
> are implementations of a policy, not a policy.
> > So I neither GAC nor ALAC is entitled to some kind of an explanation
> if they forward an objection and it is not upheld. Moreover, please
> note the capacity burden this would place on the Board and staff if
> there are a lot of objections.
> >
> >
>