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

[Ray Plzak]

I agree with Adam.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:12 AM
> To: Milton Mueller; avri at acm.org
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> Subject: Re: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
> Department/GAC chair intervention
> 
> Milton, don't see why GAC's request was against
> any defined procedure. But perhaps I
> misunderstand the bylaws.  Please explain.
> 
> It's irritating, it indicates problems with the
> process, but where does it say GAC can't make a
> request of this kind? It wasn't totally
> unexpected, still a surprise, but as some
> governments in Luxembourg made strong concerns
> known, more (those who obviously hadn't followed
> any of the ICANN process) made very strong
> complaints during WGIG discussion, it wasn't out
> of the blue.
> 
> When was the agenda of the August 16 board
> meeting announced? i.e. when would governments
> have known that a board decision on xxx was
> imminent?  Veni, can you tell us.
> 
> I don't see GAC and NTIA acting in concert.  US
> may have been one govt to ask GAC to ask for a
> delay, but there are very strong indications they
> were not the only ones.
> 
> For the rest, all been said by Izumi, Ian, Bill, Veni, Ewan...
> 
> This is a very important issue. But at the moment
> I'd rather wait and see what happens between now
> and September 15 and at the meeting on September
> 15 than try to produce any hard hitting
> statement.  We don't know enough.
> 
> I wouldn't be unhappy to see a statement warning
> ICANN of our concerns, set things up for a
> statement should our fears be realized. And
> criticizing NTIA for what I think was unfair an
> inappropriate pressure, particularly when quoting
> a bunch of from letters from one of the
> administration's basest political lobbies.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 7:16 PM -0400 8/18/05, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >Avri:
> >Thank you for engaging in discussion and for not trying to foreclose
> >it.
> >I answer your questions below.
> >
> >>>>  Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/18/05 5:43 PM >>>
> >>The indication is that this is against the rules.
> >
> >The GAC/DoC intervention did not follow defined procedures for offering
> >policy advice. You could call that a break in the rules.
> >
> >But the more important point is that it represents an arbitrary and
> >politically motivated deviation from what ICANN said its process would
> >be. ICANN laid out its TLD RFP, application and approval process in
> >October 2003. Everybody planned according to those procedures. Now it's
> >throwing them aside. That's bad. .net was another example (see below) -
> >apparently you understood the significance of that case.
> >
> >ICANN probably has the legal authority to not move forward with
> >finalization of the contract, but you can definitely expect a lawsuit
> >from ICM Registry if they turn them down on reconsideration, and at the
> >point there will be a long and interesting dialogue about what rules
> >were broken or not.
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >I think you understand that correctly. And I am saying, for civil
> >society to remain silent during that period is really, really
> >incomprehensible. We have to make known our concerns.
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >Actually you are reinforcing our point.
> >
> >The reason the VeriSign contract had to be revisited was that ICANN
> >very definitely broke its own procedure by not posting the changed
> >contract to permit public comment. In other words, it denied the
> >community the opportunity to express it views on the changes in the .net
> >contract by revising its procedures on the fly. Not to mention the other
> >procedural parade of horribles documented by the Register and others
> >regarding how the .net process seemed deliberately skewed to favor
> >VeriSign.
> >
> >Now if ICANN had somehow DENIED the GAC an opportunity to participate
> >in the sTLD approvals by being shifty then I would definitely be on the
> >side of GAC in this dispute. But in this case the opposite is happening.
> >GAC wants to suspend the rules because it doesn't like the result and
> >didn't bother to get engaged when it could.,
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >I hope you can see now that there is no inconsistency. The revolt
> >against the VeriSign .net contract was a revolt against shifting
> >procedures that make it impossible for people to know what the rules are
> >and how to participate. It is the same issue here.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >governance mailing list
> >governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



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