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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Hi, Chuck
I think it's bad for the integrity and clarity of ICANN's processes to blur the 
line between implementation and policy.

If we are setting policy, GAC has a right to have its recommendations followed 
or else get an explanation from the Board. 

If we are applying the policy to a specific application, the GAC has no such 
right. 
 
Remember the first principle of the new gTLD policy: applicants need to have a 
pretty firm idea what they need to do to comply with a policy. 
If a TLD is not illegal according to a general policy, it should NOT be 
possible for the GAC to lobby the Board, post-hoc, and say, "well, we don't 
like THIS application now that we see it. That is the exact opposite of having 
a clear policy - it turns the whole thing into a political lobbying and 
guessing game. It opens the door for discrimination, personal vendettas, 
anti-competitive moves, and many other kinds of abuse. 

So please let's not open the door.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:23 AM
> To: Avri Doria; soac-mapo
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> 
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
>