[governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce Department/GAC chair intervention

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

The indication is that this is against the rules.  I wonder if you  
could help me in this by pointing at the rules/clause that it  
breaks.  Also if I understand correctly, and i admit i might not,  
they are not specifically asking for the decision to be rescinded  
just for time before negotiating the contract.  Now, i can see how  
this might amount to the essentially the same thing, but not  
necessarily.

While i understand the issue when seen from the perspective of undue  
influence, I know that i generally value flexibilty, and was very  
happy, e.g., when the ICANN Board and Verisign indicated willingness  
to renegotiate elements of a signed contract.  and I know that I want  
the board to be subject to a lot a review before they sign any contract.

In other words I do worry about sending a self-conflicting message:  
we like it when you reconsider decisions aexcept for when we don't.

thanks
a.

On 18 aug 2005, at 16.15, Milton Mueller wrote:

> 2. The importance of stable rules and procedures
>
> We believe that Board's willingness to entertain this last-minute  
> intervention, while no doubt intended to be an act of accommodation  
> and flexibility, could damage the fairness, credibility and  
> stability of ICANN's processes if it is taken to be a precedent for  
> the future. We believe that it is unjust to tell TLD applicants *  
> or anyone else seeking a decision or policy from ICANN * to follow  
> a prolonged and elaborate set of rules and procedures, and then at  
> the 11th hour cast all those requirements aside and impose new  
> procedures that put at risk everything they have invested. But the  
> harm potentially goes beyond those directly affected by ICANN  
> awards. The delay sends a message to everyone who devotes time and  
> energy to participating in ICANN processes that their work can be  
> rendered irrelevant at any time if politics intervene.  GAC  
> members, including the US government, had ample opportunity to  
> express their views on the .xxx proposal during the transparent 18- 
> month evaluation process. At the very least, the GAC should be  
> required to agree on a formal resolution before offering policy  
> advice to the Board, as ICANN's bylaws stipulate. As we show in the  
> annex to this letter, GAC members had many opportunities to learn  
> about and express their views on the .xxx application, but passed  
> them up. It is unclear to us why a stakeholder group unwilling to  
> fulfill the role assigned to them by the TLD evaluation process  
> should be granted special powers to affect the outcome.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance