Re: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

There are existing processes in place for making policy within ICANN. This 
group was never part of those processes. Trying to circumvent these processes 
can only weaken them. That is the real danger here.

Stéphane

Le 29 nov. 2010 à 11:48, Konstantinos Komaitis a écrit :

> But here my problem: if CWGs are seen as providing all this work and have 
> their recommendations treated by ICANN the way these recommendations have, 
> this provides a huge disincentive for people to participate in such CWGs. I 
> understand that the role of CWG is not to create policy, but surely the 
> conclusions of such working groups should be acknowledged and deliberated by 
> ICANN and its staff. ICANN needs to promote the multi-stakeholder environment 
> – not just on paper – but truly seek to find ways to both engage and 
> appreciate the work of its CWGs. I personally feel, for example, that the 
> work of Rec. 6 CWG has not been appreciated either by GAC or by ICANN.
>  
> KK
>  
> Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
>  
> Law Lecturer,
> Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
> Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
> University of Strathclyde,
> The Law School,
> Graham Hills building,
> 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
> UK
> tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
> http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
> Selected publications: 
> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
> Website: www.komaitis.org
>  
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Jon Nevett
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 4:56 AM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: 
> morality issues
>  
> I support the model of cross-community discussion groups, such as this CWG.  
> In certain circumstances, they are a very good idea.  I think that it worked 
> very well in this case.  
>  
> Unfortunately, some folks have been characterizing this group as something 
> that it is not.  It is not a policy-making group and our report was not a 
> pronouncement with some sort of imprimatur of the will of ICANN community.  
> It should be viewed for what it is/was -- a group of interested volunteers 
> getting together to discuss potential solutions to an issue based on the 
> request of some of the leaders of various ICANN supporting 
> organizations/advisory committees.  We were successful in offering up some 
> good suggestions and proposals, but the work has never been ratified by the 
> policy-making body and should not be viewed as bottom-up policy-making.  
> Therefore, if the ICANN Board disagrees with a recommendation of this group 
> with a clear rationale, I don't view it as an affront to the bottom-up policy 
> making model as others have been articulating.  
>  
> My concern is that if folks oversell the nature of the group and try to deem 
> this kind of a discussion group as one with a policy-making function, then 
> the those with the actual policy-making responsibility under ICANN's Bylaws 
> might choose not to support groups like the CWG for fear that the work will 
> be viewed as policy-making without the due process protections built into the 
> Bylaws.  In order to foster future discussion groups like the CWG, I suggest 
> that we not suggest that they are something that they are not.  
>  
> Thanks.
>  
> Jon
>  
>  
> On Nov 28, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks, Frank.
> I do understand the point you are making. Problem is, it’s incorrect. The CWG 
> was officially co-convened by the Chair of GAC along with the chairs of ALAC 
> and GNSO, and there was active representation of several GAC members in it. 
> Moreover, the charter of this group was approved by the GAC chair and passed 
> by the full GAC for its approval. Therefore while you may be right to say 
> that it is still unclear whether GAC as a body would fully endorse the 
> results of the report and its recommendations, it is plainly not correct to 
> say that “the GAC” did not participate in it. It did.
>  
> Beyond that, on a more human level, I wonder whether you have thought through 
> the longer term implications of what you seem to be saying/doing. Many 
> people, not just myself, would take this kind of distancing as further 
> evidence of the dysfunctionality of current arrangements for multistakeholder 
> cooperation in ICANN. As long as representatives of national governments hold 
> themselves apart from the process and (through strategic behavior) seek a 
> special, privileged influence over policy outcomes, then there will be major 
> challenges to the legitimacy of both the GAC and the policy outputs that come 
> out of the board on any issue. That lack of good faith process can only hold 
> back the internet.
>  
> Certainly, if governments want to make these decisions on their own, on their 
> own terms, they can do it. But then they’d have to be big boys and girls and 
> negotiate and pass a binding international treaty. And that would require you 
> to follow constitutional constraints, due process requirements and 
> ratification processes of the member states. If you’re not willing to do 
> that, then perhaps you need to take these processes a bit more seriously. You 
> can’t have it both ways.
>  
> Cheers,
> --MM
>  
> (p.s., if you do want to go the treaty route, I look forward to discussing 
> the First Amendment implications with the U.S. representatives.)
>  
>  
> From: Frank March [mailto:Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:51 PM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Antony Van Couvering; soac-mapo
> Cc: Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: 
> morality issues
>  
> Without wishing to seem pedantic, the GAC did not participate in the Rec6WG. 
> As I was at pains to point out on a number of occasions, some GAC members 
> including myself were part of the group but not able to speak on behalf of 
> the GAC.  I would like to think that the overall direction of the report 
> would have strong GAC support but this has not been tested.
>  
> Because of the timing issues of getting the report ready in time for the 
> Council retreat, it was never proposed that the report be taken formally to 
> the GAC for discussion or endorsement.  My view is that it it is the Board's 
> response to the report and the outcomes therefrom that would engage the GAC, 
> not the report itself.
>  
> Given that the issues raised are still 'live' and the work is carrying on it 
> would certainly be possible to have a discussion in Cartagena.  I have a 
> feeling however that endorsement of the report from the GAC would be 
> difficult to achieve.  It might well be considered by some members not to be 
> an appropriate action for the GAC to take.
>  
> Best wishes, Frank
>  
> ----
> Frank March
> Senior Specialist Advisor
> Communications and IT Policy
> Ministry of Economic Development
> 33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473
> WELLINGTON, New Zealand
> Mobile: (+64) 021 494165
>  
>  
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, 29 November 2010 4:48 a.m.
> To: Antony Van Couvering; soac-mapo
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: 
> morality issues
> 
> The disturbing thing about this exchange of letters is that both sides seem 
> to treat this working group – which GAC participated in – as if it did not 
> contribute “thoughtful proposals” to resolve the stated concerns.
>  
>