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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Frank.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Frank March
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:11 AM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> 
> 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.