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

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

Thanks for the quick response to my request Evan.  I encourage others to 
respond and I inserted some comments regarding your recommendation 4.3.

 

Chuck

 

From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 12:50 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Robin Gross; soac-mapo; Mary Wong
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - Poll on updated recommendations

 

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.

[Gomes, Chuck] From what I have observed on the CWG list, others in the group 
seem to be okay with the experts providing advice or a recommendation regarding 
acceptance or rejection of a string as long as the other conditions you state 
are satisfied.  In my personal opinion, if I was a Board member who had to make 
the ultimate decision, I definitely would want the experts to state their 
conclusion regarding acceptance or rejection of a string along with the 
rationale.  Otherwise, I as a Board member would have to reach my own 
conclusion as a non-expert.  If I hire an expert, I want them to use their 
expertise to reach a conclusion; then I can evaluate their conclusion based on 
the evidence they provide.



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