Re: [soac-mapo] RE: some comments & wording change suggestion

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

2010/9/20 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
> Thank you very much Wang for these contributions.  Please see my questions
> below.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 王亮 [mailto:wangliang@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:37 AM
> > To: soac-mapo
> > Cc: Gomes, Chuck
> > Subject: some comments & wording change suggestion
> >
> > Dear colleagues，
> >
> > Some comments on some parts of the CWG’s report .
> >
> > 1)    According to the results of the current discussions，CWG endorsed
> > the suggestion that using the ”experts panel” to replace “DRSP”，It is
> > fine for me. However, as described in DAG4, ICANN had appointed ICC as
> > a third-party to deal with Rec 6 related and community-based objection.
> > The ICC is a physical body but not the experts panel proposed by CWG.
> > Therefore, it is recommended that the CWG should recommend the Board to
> > reconsider this issue in the report.
> [Gomes, Chuck] I believe that AGv4 proposes that the ICC provide the
> experts as well.  Do you understand it differently?
>



As I read his email, I think that Mr. Wang's concern is that ICANN has
already contracted ICC for (and the DAG mentions it in) a role that
(according to our recommendations) no longer exists.

The expert role is substantially different from that of a DRSP, and ICC may
or may not be suitable for that task.

As you know, we've explicitly removed as section (Issue 6) that was intended
to address significant concern within this WG that the ICC was unsuitable,
even as a DRSP. The ICC may be even less appropriate for a simpler expert
role, especially given that costs for the experts are now to be borne by
ICANN (as opposed to the disputing parties being required to pay the costs
of the DRSP). But that discussion and decision is now agreed to be an
implementation issue and out of scope of new-gTLD policy.

Mr. Wang appears to be asking (and I am coming to agree) that the WG be
explicit in recommending the reconsideration of ICC if it has already been
pre-selected as DRSP. Since the choice of experts is out of the scope of the
policy, specific mention of DRSPs (especially specifically naming them)
should be removed from the AGB. At very least, if it follows our
recommendations ICANN will need to completely overhaul the requirements
specifications for such contracts.

- Evan