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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Chuck's one concern.  Other than that one sentence, I am very 
comfortable with Evan's high level formulation.  I fear that Mary's well 
thought out suggestion is too rich with implementation details causing 
disagreements on issues that we need not address.

Thanks.  

Jon


On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:13 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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