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

[stevepinkos@xxxxxxxxx]

I believe this is a sound and reasonable idea.


Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:25:53 
To: Konstantinos Komaitis<k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Carvell Mark 
(IE)<Mark.Carvell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; avri@xxxxxxx<avri@xxxxxxx>; 
soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx<soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)


What about recommending a panel of at least 3 independent experts one of whom 
would be appointed by the GAC?  Let's remember that the panel only would be 
advising the Board.  A panel could benefit from a GAC-appointed independent 
advisor without risk that the advice from the other panelists would be 
overruled.  If one independent and autonomous adviser is appointed by the GAC 
as Mark suggests below, I don't see that as creating some kind of inappropriate 
bias.

Thanks.

Jon



On Sep 15, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

> 
> I think that the expert should be an independent and autonomous expert with 
> no vested interests. since we are talking here about gTLDs that potentially 
> may raise issues of international law and concern, this is the way the expert 
> should approach them. Being identified by an SO or AC does not allow experts 
> an independent approach - it creates a sort of indirect bias that, in similar 
> contexts, we have experienced both within ICANN and outside.
> 
> My 2 cents
> 
> KK
> 
> 
> On 15/09/2010 17:28, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that the very fact that an SO or AC nominated an expert would 
> make the expert less independent, but I am not an expert on that.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>