Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - Poll on updated recommendations

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 15 September 2010 20:51, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> I would like to request that Evan and Mary resubmit their latest
> recommendations for wording of recommendations 4.1 and 4.2 so that we
> can all take a look at them again and make sure that we are all
> evaluating the latest wording.  I am assuming that what they proposed
> covers both 4.1 and 4.2; if that is not correct, let me know.
> Regardless, please submit your latest versions.
>


That is indeed accurate with regard to the proposal I made. In fact, my
intention is to completely replace Section 4, which despite all the changes
and consensus is still, as a category of recommendations, referred to as
"Outsourcing of Dispute Resolution Process".

So here is my proposed replacement for section 4, which is largely derived
from the original that appeared to attract reasonable support on the last
Doodle poll. I have made some additions based on subsequent conversations
and have broken individual policies into individual components for clarity
(and perhaps individual consideration/consensus)

4.      *Contracted Expert Consultation
*
4.1 Ultimate resolution of the admissibility of a TLD subject to a Rec6
objection rests with the Board alone and may not be delegated to a third
party.

4.2 Under its authority to obtain independent expertise as stated in Article
XI-A of the ICANN Bylaws, the Board shall contract appropriate expert
resources capable of providing objective advice on the applicability of
principles of international law, in regard to objections received through
this process.

4.3 Such experts advising the ICANN Board are to be independent of any
conflict with ICANN-affiliated bodies in accordance with other provisions in
the AGB. Their advice will be limited in scope to analysis of objections,
based upon the criteria as expressed within this policy. They will advise on
applicability, but will not recommend acceptance or rejection of any
particular string.

4.4 The number of experts to be consulted, the method of their selection and
terms of their engagement, are to be determined by the Board subject to
these policies
*
NOTE: Acceptance of 4.3 and 4.4 as written above essentially requires
elimination of all of Section 6, "Expertise of the ICC as DRSP", since my
proposed wording treats selection of the experts (including specific naming
of candidates) as an implementation detail that is outside the scope of
these policy recommendations. Considering that few current recommendations
in Section 6 have wide consensus. eliminating it may not be such a bad idea.
*


- Evan