Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Expert panel appointment

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I agree with Jon's point.  

Also,  there is a very wide divergence of views within the GAC, so I don't 
think there could be any single panelist selected by them who could be biased 
in favor of all members views.  

I like this approach.  It doesn't change the standard for a successful 
objection,   and,   as we have discussed in great detail,  it doesn't make the 
panel's advice any more than that --  just advice.

RT


On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Jon Nevett wrote:

> Just because someone is appointed by an SO or AC does not mean that they are 
> not or cannot be independent.  Just look at the independent members of the 
> ICANN Board appointed by the SOs -- some folks wish that they would be less 
> independent . . . 
> 
> 
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> 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 same
>>> Mark
>>>  
>>> 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 AM
>>> To: 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 recommendation
>>> for which we may reach consensus.  With the understanding that I am
>>> multitasking 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 possible
>>> way 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 decision
>>> on 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 the
>>> overall recommendation?  If so, please speak up and describe your
>>> concerns.
>>> 
>>> I know that many GAC members have been very involved with the IGF and it
>>> has 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/gac
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>