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

[gangadhar]

I fully agree with the contention of David, Mueller, Corwin and FarziGangadhar PandayPresidentBabul Films Soceity nonprofitwww.babul.ngo Videos and ICT for Eco-awareness 

    On Wednesday, 17 May 2017 7:51 AM, David Cake <dave at DAVECAKE.NET> wrote:
 

 Yes, this is a very odd, contorted GAC position here, where their consensus advice is that they do not have consensus, but the board must negotiate with the loud angry minority anyway. 
And the GAC clearly does not have consensus, many governments (including my own) are not happy with the attempt to create this right with no legal or policy basis. 
David

There are many governments (including mine) who feel the attempt to create a right that has no support 

On 17 May 2017, at 4:52 am, Alex Gakuru <gakuru at gmail.com> wrote:
ICANN is a complicated animal 
On 16 May 2017 9:05 pm, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

I also agree with Farzi, Phil, and Milton.  GAC is constantly grabbing for more power and we need to be aware of that and push back when it happens, such as in this case.
Thanks,Robin

On May 16, 2017, at 10:40 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
Completely agree with Farzaneh and Corwin here. This is more than just a 2-letter ccTLD issue, it is an issue fundamental to the accountability reforms. When we (NCSG) want a policy change or to advance a new policy, we are constantly told that we must work hard to get consensus and/or a certain number of votes. Unfortunately, the GAC-board relationship has always provided a channel through which the legitimate policy development process can be bypassed based on private deals and political bargaining between ICANN staff/board and a special interest group. This has to stop! It’s extremely corrosive of the integrity of ICANN process. If GAC has not offered consensus advice, it creates no obligation whatsoever to compromise; indeed, it is not even “advice” in the bylaw meaning. This is a fact.   Dr. Milton L MuellerProfessor, School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyInternet Governance Projecthttp://internetgovernance.org/   From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV. SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of farzaneh badii
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:23 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR. EDU
Subject: Re: Fw: [Internet Policy] The 2-Character Answer to this GAC Advice Should be "No" 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 PMUTC Time: May 16, 2017 2:43 PMFrom: psc at vlaw-dc.comTo: 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 PrincipalVirtualaw LLC1155 F Street, NWSuite 1050Washington, DC 20004202-559-8597/Direct202-559-8750/Fax202-255-6172/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/20170517/584a9f79/attachment.htm>