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

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

Richard,

It probably would only be in cases where they filed an application but
wouldn't it be easier to have a pool of experts that do not have any
conflicts?  Don't know if that is possible or not.  How does AGv4 deal
with that now?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 8:33 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [GAC] [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> 
> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >