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

[Michael Oghia]

Thanks for this context. Here's the question: what can we, as an SG, do
about it?

Also, can we push back? Are our hands tied? Does it simply amount to
politics?

Best,
-Michael

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:40 PM, 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 Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/>
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://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 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/20170517/6528d703/attachment.htm>