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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> I would like to add one consideration to this discussion.  To the extent
> that a CWG has a duly approved charter by the GNSO Council and the
> council accepts the conclusions of the CWG in a well formed motion, its
> recommendations should be considered policy recommendations, even if not
> specifically contractual conditions policy.

Avri
This is course is exactly right. And Bertrand's judicious comments are also on 
target and an indication of a good faith effort to cooperate. What we're 
getting from the businessmen, on the other hand, is just an impatience to 
proceed motivated by financial concerns; I think this needs to be acknowledged 
because it is being dressed up as a procedural argument when it's really not 
about that. I think ICANN staff has also developed a bit of a vested interest 
in retaining as much as possible of their earlier implementation work simply 
because they, like the rest of us, are all sick of the process and want to 
bring it to a close. 

While I strongly sympathize with the costliness of the incredibly long 
gestation time for new TLD policy, I cannot accept a willingness to sell out 
basic human expression rights in exchange for bringing the new gTLD program a 
month or two closer. Let's solve this problem correctly by relying on the CWG's 
work, which is the only thing we have that approximates a general agreement! 
Moreover, if we don't rely on the work of the CWG what else is there? There is 
a clear risk that the entire ICANN policy process will be circumvented by a 
clandestinely-negotiated deal between the board and the GAC, or litigated, or 
both. 

--MM