Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
I would be very concerned about giving GAC a seat on this "independent expert" panel. That seems to steer this process away from clear objective standards based on international legal principles and back towards geo-politiking, which is dangerous for ICANN to entertain. The GAC expert can hardly be said to be "independent". We are trying to move this process away from geo- political battles and towards objective global standards, so this would take us in exactly the wrong direction. Robin From: Carvell Mark (IE) [mailto:Mark.Carvell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; avri@xxxxxxx; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)Thanks - I was meaning an independent expert who the GAC would identify and agree collectively to nominate rather than a GAC member - and the other ACs and SOs would have the opportunity to do the sameMark From: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>To: Carvell Mark (IE); avri@xxxxxxx <avri@xxxxxxx>; soac- mapo@xxxxxxxxx <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>Sent: Wed Sep 15 16:57:38 2010 Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)I don't think so Mark because the panelists cannot have any association with any interested parties.Chuck From: Carvell Mark (IE) [mailto:Mark.Carvell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:45 AMTo: Gomes, Chuck; avri@xxxxxxx <avri@xxxxxxx>; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1) Chuck Many thanks for pulling out the key elements which look fine to me.Apologies if I missed a key exchange of messages on the topic and I am going over established ground but what is the group's thinking on the composition of the expert panel - is there a place for a GAC nominee for example?Best regards Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: gac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <gac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wed Sep 15 11:02:42 2010 Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)It appears to me that we may be converging on a possible recommendationfor which we may reach consensus. With the understanding that I ammultitasking with IGF participation and the Rec6 CWG work so I may have missed some points, here are the main points of what I see as a possibleway forward on this: 1. The expert panel would give advice/recommendation regarding a Rec6 objection.2. The Board would review that advice/recommendation and make a decisionon whether to approve the gTLD string. 3. A 2/3 majority would be required for a Board decision (pro or con). Please correct me if I got any of this incorrectly or if something is missing. My intent was not to communicate the wording of the possible recommendation because others have already done a good job in that regard but rather to just summarize what I think the main elements of the possible recommendation that seems to be emerging.Does anyone in the CWG disagree with any of the three points or with theoverall recommendation? If so, please speak up and describe your concerns.I know that many GAC members have been very involved with the IGF and ithas been difficult for them to keep up with the CWG list discussions, but I hope that some GAC members can comment on the above. Thanks for the excellent discussion of this. Chuck > -----Original Message-----> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac- mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On> Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:01 AM > To: soac-mapo > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1) > > > this works for me. > > and then the voting correlate would be that to bar any string a > supermajority of the board would be needed. > > 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. > > a. > > On 15 Sep 2010, at 00:11, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > On the "advice" vs. "recommendation" issue, I think Mary got it > exactly right here: > > > > For example, there's a difference (to my mind) between an expert > opnion that "this series of words (i.e. the string) is contrary to a > well-known principle of international law" and one that says "this > string should not be approved because it is contrary to a well-known > principle of international law". Wouldn't it be more appropriate for > the expert opnion to be along the lines of the former, such that the> Board then has to decide whether, in light of that finding, it will or> won't approve the application? > > >> > In other words, the experts can tell the Board that in their opinion> a string is clearly contrary to principles of int. law, possibly > contrary, or clearly not contrary. But it cannot and should not say, > "do not approve this string" or "do approve this string" > >> > That distinction may seem nuanced, but it really matters. It is the> board making the decision, not the experts. This distinction is not > quite captured, however, by the current proposal for 4.1, which says > that the experts cannot provide advice or recommendations, which is why > I voted against it. > >> > As I have said before, whether you call the experts' report "advice"> or "recommendation" or something does not matter much if the Board must> have a supermajority to kill an application based on an objection, and> it must have that supermajority regardless of what the experts said. > > > > So in my opinion, the board should NOT vote to approve or discard the > decision handed to it by the experts. It should use the experts' report > as an input to its decision. The decision is its own. > > > > --MM > > > _______________________________________________ gac mailing list gac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gacThe original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. 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
|