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

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

Jon,

 

They may be independent but there would be a perception and suspicion of
any expert who was appointed or recommended by a particular interest
group.  In this situation, I believe it would be best to avoid even the
perception of conflict.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 3:30 PM
To: Robin Gross
Cc: soac-mapo; Carvell Mark (IE)
Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)

 

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 <http://www.ipjustice.org/>      e:
robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx