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

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

I think you are probably right Milton.  I was thinking more generally about the 
implementation plan itself rather that regarding a specific application.  The 
process allows anyone to comment on specific applications and that would 
include the GAC but that should happen earlier in the process and at that point 
it would definitely be implementation and definitely not be policy.  

Chuck


----- Original Message -----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:45 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)

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.
> > >
> > >
> >
>