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

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

 You wrote :

       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 o

I would tend to believe that approval or not of a string that has
triggered objections regarding principles of International Law would
fall in the category of Public Policy Issue (wi respect to the bylaws
provisions regarding the relationship between GAC and Board.

We need to discuss whether in Rec 6 procedure, ALAC should benefit
from the same provision as the GAC (explanation why the Board has not
followed the advice, etc...). I personally would tend to say yes. But
let's get the views of the group.

B.

On Wednesday, September 15, 2010, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gac mailing list
> gac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac
>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
the Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")