Re: [soac-mapo] RE: Follow-up from Monday's Consultation on Rec. 6 - correction

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the event that a string rises to the level of scrutiny that we are 
envisioning, it will be a proverbial hot potato.  it will stir up passions, it 
will be reported upon, and the arguments rehearsed in this working group will 
be repeated both within ICANN and without.      Without even considering 
whether ICANN rules permit an outsourced body to make Board-level decisions, it 
is simply not credible that a decision like this -- or even a recommendation -- 
should be made by any party other than the Board.   This cannot credibly be 
viewed as a non-political event. 

The reason this WG and this issue are  taking so long is that there aren't 
objective criteria for what's "moral" and what isn't. Even if you don't want to 
use the word "morality" you cannot deny the plain reality that these are not 
issues of fact, but of opinion. 

Therefore, even supposing a decision or recommendation were, initially, made by 
an outside group, there would be incredible pressure to reconsider it.   The 
outside group's credibility and impartiality would be attacked, which would 
undermine its effectiveness; ICANN would be attacked (again)  for being 
pusillanimous, which would not be good for ICANN; and the world's governments 
may be pressured to take a position, which could lead to strife.  In the end, 
the outside body's recommendations, however appealing they might seem as cover, 
cannot be taken seriously as something to rely upon.  it would be a mistake, in 
my opinion, to attempt to clothe a judgment call in the costume of objectivity. 
  Whatever the decision, yea or nay, reliance on the judgments of a third party 
will be seen as a clumsy attempt to avoid responsibility. 

That's the best reason for reserving to the Board the decision on controversial 
strings: they, either alone or with other ICANN bodies, are going to end up 
doing it anyway, and the effect of not sending it directly to them will be to 
fray and strain the credibility of ICANN and its Board, without any gain in 
speed, correctness, or reputation.   An outside group can definitely provide 
objective input, e.g. as to international law, but it cannot take the place of 
a properly constituted decision-making body.  Any attempt to do so will 
inevitably harm ICANN.

Antony



On Nov 18, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Carvell Mark (IE) wrote:

> Philip
> 
> I have to take issue with "severely limited" . We do in fact represent 
> governments - not solely our individual ministries - and in fulfilling that 
> responsibility we have ready recourse to consult across administrations to 
> points of specific relevant policy authority and to the appropriate legal 
> experts. 
> 
> Best regards 
> 
> Mark
> 
> Mark Carvell
> UK Representative on the GAC
> 
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx <owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx> 
> To: 'soac-mapo' <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Sent: Thu Nov 18 14:41:26 2010
> Subject: [soac-mapo] RE: Follow-up from Monday's Consultation on Rec. 6 - 
> correction 
> 
>  
> Correction below - acronym confusion - apologies
> 
>  
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:23 PM
> To: 'soac-mapo'
> Subject: [soac-mapo] RE: Follow-up from Monday's Consultation on Rec. 6
> 
> As ever I do enjoy Milton's absolute certainty about the uncertain.
>  
> ---------------
> As to the questions I concur that we all agreed the Board should take 
> ultimate responsibility.
> But I believe we recognised that the Board lacked expertise and so foresaw 
> the need for external experts.
> Whether such provision is an automatic staff referral on receipt of an 
> objection or needs to wait around for a Board meeting to occur, was I believe 
> an open question.
> This seems to be the essence of the practical application question regardless 
> of what we call the experts.
>  
> As to supermajorities of  GAC or governments, we must recall that the 
> individual  GAC appointees are also not experts in this area.
> The underlying ministries whence the  GAC appointees come are also not the 
> experts in this area.
> The ability of a GAC appointee to be able to speak for his/her government 
> definitively of this issue is I believe severely limited.
> Lets bear this in mind.
>  
> Philip
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 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.