RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)

["Frank March" <Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this is highly acceptable, Chuck.

As I have stated before I see no issue with always requiring a
supermajority of the Board for a MOPO type decision.

Suggest that 'advice' is better formulation than 'recommendation'.

Otherwise OK.

Cheers, Frank


----
Frank March
Senior Specialist Advisor
Digital Development
Energy and Communications Branch, Ministry of Economic Development
33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473, WELLINGTON
Mobile: (+64) 021 494165
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 September 2010 10:03 p.m.
> To: Avri Doria; soac-mapo
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> 
> It appears to me that we may be converging on a possible 
> recommendation for which we may reach consensus.  With the 
> understanding that I am multitasking with IGF participation 
> and the Rec6 CWG work so I may have missed some points, here 
> are the main points of what I see as a possible way forward on this: 
> 
> 1. The expert panel would give advice/recommendation 
> regarding a Rec6 objection.
> 2. The Board would review that advice/recommendation and make 
> a decision on whether to approve the gTLD string.
> 3. A 2/3 majority would be required for a Board decision (pro or con).
> 
> Please correct me if I got any of this incorrectly or if 
> something is missing.  My intent was not to communicate the 
> wording of the possible recommendation because others have 
> already done a good job in that regard but rather to just 
> summarize what I think the main elements of the possible 
> recommendation that seems to be emerging.
> 
> Does anyone in the CWG disagree with any of the three points 
> or with the overall recommendation?  If so, please speak up 
> and describe your concerns.
> 
> I know that many GAC members have been very involved with the 
> IGF and it has been difficult for them to keep up with the 
> CWG list discussions, but I hope that some GAC members can 
> comment on the above.
> 
> Thanks for the excellent discussion of this.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> > Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:01 AM
> > To: soac-mapo
> > Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> > 
> > 
> > this works for me.
> > 
> > and then the voting correlate would be that to bar any string a 
> > supermajority of the board would be needed.
> > 
> > with the assumption that if the appellant is either the GAC 
> or ALAC, 
> > the board would then discuss their decision with them as 
> required in 
> > the bylaw currently for GAC should they be requested to do 
> so by the 
> > AC.
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > On 15 Sep 2010, at 00:11, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> > 
> > > On the "advice" vs. "recommendation" issue, I think Mary got it
> > exactly right here:
> > >
> > > For example, there's a difference (to my mind) between an expert
> > opnion that "this series of words (i.e. the string) is 
> contrary to a 
> > well-known principle of international law" and one that says "this 
> > string should not be approved because it is contrary to a 
> well-known 
> > principle of international law". Wouldn't it be more 
> appropriate for 
> > the expert opnion to be along the lines of the former, such 
> that the 
> > Board then has to decide whether, in light of that finding, 
> it will or 
> > won't approve the application?
> > 
> > >
> > > In other words, the experts can tell the Board that in 
> their opinion
> > a string is clearly contrary to principles of int. law, possibly 
> > contrary, or clearly not contrary. But it cannot and should 
> not say, 
> > "do not approve this string" or "do approve this string"
> > >
> > > That distinction may seem nuanced, but it really matters. 
> It is the
> > board making the decision, not the experts. This distinction is not 
> > quite captured, however, by the current proposal for 4.1, 
> which says 
> > that the experts cannot provide advice or recommendations, which is
> why
> > I voted against it.
> > >
> > > As I have said before, whether you call the experts' 
> report "advice"
> > or "recommendation" or something does not matter much if the Board
> must
> > have a supermajority to kill an application based on an 
> objection, and 
> > it must have that supermajority regardless of what the experts said.
> > >
> > > So in my opinion, the board should NOT vote to approve or discard
> the
> > decision handed to it by the experts. It should use the experts'
> report
> > as an input to its decision. The decision is its own.
> > >
> > > --MM
> > >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
newzealand.govt.nz - connecting you to New Zealand central & local government 
services

Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the 
Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with 
it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you 
are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the 
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and 
that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the 
message and any attachment from your computer.