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

[Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

Even if the whole GAC and gNSO Council do not formally endorse the
Rec6 WG recommendations, its proposals are probably more balanced and
accepted by the community than the existing "morality and public
order" provisions of DAG4, that were strongly opposed by almost
everyone (let us not forget that this was the reason for the creation
of the WG in the first place).

The absence of formal endorsement by the whole GAC and gNSO Council
does give some room for appreciation for the staff (to make proposals)
and the Board (to set the ultimate balance).

However, this latitude should be constrained by the public interest
duty to only make changes that increase the global acceptance and
implementability of the solution.

In other words, there is probably a need for the staff and Board, if
they move away from the recommendations of the Rec6 WG, to not only
explain the rationale for the change, but also why it improves the
general community support.

On a side note, I agree that the Rec6 group carefully avoided doing
policy (cf. Our early debate regarding not reopening the gNSO policy
recommendations) and rightfully focused on implementation modalities.

Best

Bertrand



On Monday, November 29, 2010, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Avri
>
> You may be using 'ignore' in a different sense than I do.  To me it means to 
> pay no regard, or to fail to consider.
>
> In that sense I don't think its fair to say the Board will ignore any 
> recommendations in our report.   Based on the conversations I've had with 
> Board members
> they seem to be carefully considering all the options on this difficult issue.
>
> It's not a surprise to me that this is the sole, remaining issue of substance 
> in finalizing the AG.  It has always been the most complex issue to solve
> as there is such a spectrum of views, and it is highly subjective.
>
> I have confidence the Board will reach a compromise position that leaves 
> no-one fully satisfied.  That's the only workable outcome for an issue like 
> this.
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Margie,
>>
>> I agree.  The main issue here is that the GNSO and the GAC have not endorsed 
>> the work. and since one of those groups is the recommender, and one  is the 
>> adviser, the Rec6 suggestions have very little organizational support and 
>> count neither as advice or recommendations, though ALAC has endorsed them, 
>> thankfully.
>>
>> It would be nice if it were otherwise, but at this point, I think we are at 
>> the mercy of the Staff-Board to cheery pick what they wish and ignore the 
>> rest.  So I have the hope that the clarifications will inspire the 
>> Staff-Board to accept the Rec6 suggestions as the reasonable approach that 
>> may avoid future issues or delays in the program.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29 Nov 2010, at 11:29, Margie Milam wrote:
>>
>>> Hi-
>>>
>>> Perhaps I can provide an explanation on this issue from the Staff 
>>> perspective that I shared with the drafting team last week.
>>>
>>> The Bylaws do not include procedures for dealing with recommendations from 
>>> a cross-community group like the Rec6 CWG.  Output from a CWG should follow 
>>> the framework of the Bylaws as appropriate with respect to each 
>>> participating SO/AC.  In the case of the recommendations arising from the 
>>> Rec6 CWG Report, please note that the Report states on Page 23:
>>>
>>>      "4.     Recommended Next Steps.
>>> Given the short duration of the Rec6 CWG's existence, the participating 
>>> supporting organizations and advisory organizations have not been provided 
>>> with the opportunity to review and comment on this Report.   The Rec6 CWG 
>>> recommends that each participating organization should follow its 
>>> procedures as described in the ICANN Bylaws as may be necessary or 
>>> appropriate to comment on and communicate to the ICANN Board the opinion of 
>>> its members with regard to the recommendations contained in this Report...."
>>>
>>> Thus, the expectation was that after the Rec6 Report was published, each 
>>> supporting organization would review and comment on the Report.  Although 
>>> the ALAC has done so (see: 
>>> http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-01nov10-en.htm ), 
>>> the GNSO Council or the GAC have not endorsed the Report.   As you may 
>>> recall, with regard to the recommendations from the Special Trademark 
>>> Issues Working Group,  the GNSO Council formerly endorsed the 
>>> recommendations, and as a result, the recommendations were given due 
>>> consideration in the drafting of the Applicant Guidebook.  Without further 
>>> action by the GAC or the GNSO Council with regard to the Rec6 Report, it is 
>>> difficult to conclude that the Rec6 CWG recommendations have broad support 
>>> within these SO/ACs.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Margie
>>>
>>> ___________
>>>
>>> Margie Milam
>>> Senior Policy Counselor
>>> ICANN
>>> ____________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>>> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>>> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:39 AM
>>> To: Avri Doria; soac-mapo
>>> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: 
>>> morality issues
>>>
>>>
>>> Please see my response below Avri.
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
>>>> Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 8:58 AM
>>>> To: soac-mapo
>>>> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re:
>>>> morality issues
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Chuck,
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain why, if a WG charter is drawn up according to the
>>>> bylaws and Council procedures, it is invalidated because someone else
>>>> charters it as well?
>>> [Gomes, Chuck] I wasn't suggesting that anything be invalidated.  The 
>>> question in my mind is not so much whether a group is properly chartered 
>>> but whether that group should de

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")