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

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

I think that picking the experts is definitely an implementation issue.
If the selection of experts is based on the AG criteria and are publicly
communicated with the chance for public comment, I am not sure that it
could be done much differently.  In my opinion, having the SOAC do it
would be totally impractical; at the same time members of the SOAC would
be able to submit comments.  If any of the comments identify areas of
conflict or areas where the AG criteria are not met and those areas or
confirmed, that should be grounds for dismissal of an expert.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 3:32 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> How do we pick the experts.
> 
> I don't support letting the staff do it, so it has to be either the
> SOAC or the Board.
> And isn't the Board doing the same as the staff doing it with their
> 'approval'?
> 
> a.
> 
> On 15 Sep 2010, at 22:16, 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
> >
> >
> >
>