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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Chuck

Are you suggesting that a GAC nominated panelist would always have a conflict of
interest,  or only in those situations where the GAC filed an Objection?

RT


On Sep 15, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>