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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

To add to Chuck's last point.  The DAG currently has a process for challenging 
panelists
who are shown to have a conflict of interest.

RT


On Sep 15, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>