Fw: [Internet Policy] The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No"

[farzaneh badii]

Hi Ayden

I raised the 2-character issue and GAC involvement during our meeting with
Markus in Copenhagen. The short answer was (my interpretation): we have to
compromise.   I had previously raised the 2-character issue in a blog post
and mentioned that  GAC advice was not consensus advice. Why is the Board
acting upon it? Every time we raise some issue either we are told we don't
know anything about the process (which I have educated myself on this to
know) and that we have to compromise. I think arguing "we have to
compromise" can lead to what Phil says: "Continuing down this dangerous
path may provide governments with far more leverage over ICANN policy
decisions"

Farzaneh

Farzaneh

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
wrote:

> Worth a read.
>
> - Ayden
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Internet Policy] The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice
> Should be "No"
> Local Time: May 16, 2017 3:43 PM
> UTC Time: May 16, 2017 2:43 PM
> From: psc at vlaw-dc.com
> To: ISOC policy List <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
>
>
> I have just published a new article regarding current ICANN developments
> between the Board and GAC. It can be found at
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20170516_the_2_character_
> answer_to_this_gac_advice_should_be_no/
>
>
>
> Here’s the introduction—
>
> *Overview:** ICANN’s GAC has reacted to the ICANN Board’s November 2016
> decision to authorize the release of two-character domains at new gTLDs
> with advice to the Board that does not   have true consensus backing from
> GAC members and that relates to procedure, not policy. The Board’s proper
> response should be to just say no,  stick to its decision and advise the
> GAC that it will not consider such advice.*
>
> *Instead, the Board has, against the preliminary advice of the
> policy-making GNSO Council, initiated discussions with aggrieved GAC
> members that may reopen its decision. Continuing down this dangerous path
> may provide governments with far more leverage over ICANN policy decisions
> than was ever envisioned or intended by the long debated and carefully
> crafted new Bylaws language addressing the Board’s responsibility to give
> attention to GAC advice.*
>
>
>
> I hope you find it of interest and welcome any feedback.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
>
> *Virtualaw LLC*
>
> *1155 F Street, NW*
>
> *Suite 1050*
>
> *Washington, DC 20004*
>
> *202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
>
> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
>
> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
>
>
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170516/a9c42c03/attachment.htm>