Re: [soac-mapo] Re: some source documents

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,

On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> We all volunteered for this group.
> 
> Do we have a charter?
> 
> Do we have a mission?

After the GAC-board meeting there were various hall conversations involving 
Bertrand, Thomas, and Suzanne from GAC and Milton, Wolfgang and myself and I'm 
sure others (I'm only mentioning the ones I know of directly) about how to go 
forward in a situation where GAC is saying they don't like MAPO, don't have an 
alternative, and don't see that it falls to them to provide one.  An obvious 
idea that came up was to form a cross-community group and think through the 
options.  Nothing was agreed of course and GAC didn't get into it in the 
communiqué, but Bertrand felt that there was likely to be support in the GAC 
for doing that.  So when the Council met the following day, I pointed out that 
such a group might come together and suggested that in light of the changed 
circumstances it might be useful for the GNSO to have some discussions and see 
if we can come to a collective view in order to interface with any such process 
more effectively.  Chuck said fine who's interested, Glen threw up a list, and 
here we are.  So this is a pretty nascent dialogue with no formally defined 
charter or mission as yet.  

I checked in with Bertrand again after Glen launched the list and he said he'd 
be raising the issue on the GAC list soon and anticipated discussion in the 
SO/AC Chairs as well.  His sense remained that GAC would be favorable to a 
cross-community group. So I suppose as a first step it'd be useful to get an 
update on any GAC and SO/AC Chair discussions.
> 
> Are we here to provide arguments that the MAPO solution in DAGv4 is 
> sufficient and shouldn't be messed with?

Presumably we'd want to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various options, 
and if you/others want to lay out why you think MAPO is the least bad that'd be 
helpful.

If nothing else, at least maybe we can reach consensus that the proper acronym 
is indeed MAPO, not MOPO, before that meme takes hold...
> 
> Or do we have some other purpose?
> 
> 
> I admit I was rather shaken up when GAC resurrected the subject with the 
> lines that they did not understand the solutions and had not been consulted.  
> I know I consulted them at the time, I can't say anything about why they 
> don't understand it now. 

The reversal was puzzling in various ways.  On the US side, Becky told me that 
the State Department's legal advisor had not been consulted prior and that 
whomever Obama has in that position said hold on this doesn't work.  It 
surprises me to think Bush's wasn't consulted, but one imagines if s/he'd been 
the answer might have been different.  Milton did a nice blog bit with a 
different explanation.  Just small data points.  No idea what explains turn 
around in EU or others.
> 
> So while I think it might be useful to try and explain why the DAGv4 MAPO 
> solution is  sufficient, I do not know if that is our mission.
> 
> I should note that my arguments for DAGv4 being both necessary and sufficient 
> are my own and not supported by NCSG.  We have not polled on it lately and I 
> expect we would be of  mixed viewpoint.  At the time that the new GTLD 
> recommendations were voted on, NCUC was very much against the MAPO 
> recommendations and made no secret of it.

A lot of the NCUC-related material from back then is still on Robin's site 
http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/icann/gtlds/ although it appears that 
http://www.keep-the-core-neutral.org/ has gone to the dogs.  I don't know where 
ALAC's been on this, Evan can presumably provide pointers. 
> 
> Oh yeah, one other question: do we have wiki space to start stashing the 
> reference materials?

Would be useful.

Cheers,

Bill