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

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

Hopefully my previous message on this addressed this but let me repeat
it here just to be sure: I do not think it is possible to give any
expert a seat on the panel if they are associated with any interested
party.  The GNSO Final Report recommended that the panels be independent
and the AGv4 conflicts of interest requirements do not allow that.  In
my assessment, this would apply to the GAC, ALAC, GNSO or some subset of
the GNSO, etc.  And I also believe it would apply if any interested
party simply recommended an expert.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: stevepinkos@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:stevepinkos@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 3:58 PM
> To: Jon Nevett; owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx; Konstantinos Komaitis
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Carvell Mark (IE); avri@xxxxxxx; soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> 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.
> >
> >
>