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

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

In this particular case, the charter was clear that the CWG was not to
change or create policy, but to address what the larger community had seen
as a problematic implementation of existing policy. The policy described the
goal; the CWG was formed to re-architect a more community-friendly path to
that goal. Our target of change was the DAG -- an implementation document --
rather than a word of the original policy.

Chuck, you were very effective in helping to keep the CWG focused on its
charter and away from anything that smelled of policy making. Much as some
on the CWG may have wanted to address policy, everyone came in knowing the
bounds. And everything that the CWG eventually did and recommended were
within those bounds.

It's for this reason that, frankly, *this* exchange bothers me at least as
much as the GAC/PDT one. To me, the assertion that people are claiming the
CWG is trying to make policy is a strawman and I'm trying to determine the
reason why this rationale appears to be an obstacle to official Council
support.

Please explain what is difficult about this. Stakeholders charter a CWG,
ideally the charter is synchronizedl between them. If it keeps to the
charter and acts in good faith it should be endorsed. If it blows past its
charter it should be disavowed by all concerned (though one would hope that
the CWG would be warned of the breech by its various reps well in advance of
such a confrontation).

I understand the concern going forward, that there needs to be a way to
better involve the ACs in policy-making than exists now and that such
involvement cannot circumvent existing processes. But that shouldn't be a
reason for Council to react negatively to the Rec6 CWG (let alone fail to
endorse its recommendations). While it may have been an early prototype for
something more elaborate to come in the future, it still addressed a very
real and pressing short-term need, it stayed within charter and still needs
to be ratified.

At very least, Chuck, as someone who is not in GNSO I would hope that you as
CWG co-chair will vigorously defend against allegations that it exceeded its
charter. I am seriously concerned that arguments over future process and
what-ifs are overshadowing the actual substance of what was accomplished,
which was indeed groundbreaking.

I also want to support Bertrand's comments.

- Evan