While of course I do accede to Avri's follow-up.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 10:41 AM -0500 12/6/12, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>I'm with Dan.
>
>Nicolas
>
>
>On 03/12/2012 4:30 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
>> Quick comment:  I think the two views here may not be irreconcilable.
>>
>> One can applaud the prevention of worse harm while still deploring the ad
>> hoc nature of the process.  I assume the procedural objection would not
>> undermine the ameliorated result per se?  (That is, it would not cause the
>> result to revert to a worse outcome.)
>>
>> One can participate in a process on pragmatic terms without "legitimizing"
>> the process overall.  "Under protest" and such things.  I do think it's
>> worth clarifying this stance, officially and formally.
>>
>> So Kathy: thank you for your efforts to hold back the tides.  We can even
>> thank Fadi for being personally even-handed, taking your account at face
>> value.  But we can still raise a stink about "ad hoc creep" and point out
>> that this sort of "crisis management" is not sustainable in the long run
>> if ICANN expects to retain some modicum of legitimate authority as an
>> institution.
>>
>> Avri: I'm with you and Robin et al. on objecting to ad hoc processes being
>> used as a common method for conducting policy at ICANN.  Feels kind of
>> like Morsi in Egypt.  That said, it was probably better that Kathy
>> participated and prevented a worse outcome, in case this outcome in fact
>> does become the de facto policy, rather than not have a NC representative
>> involved.  The alternative would be to have a worse outcome.
>>
>> The only way a worse outcome could be better is if it pours more fuel on
>> the fire of illegitimacy, but that's a risky gamble.  I'm not sure that
>> allowing an outrageous outcome would give us enough additional leverage to
>> delegitimize the process to throw out the result.  And if the worse result
>> were to stand, then we're screwed worse.
>>
>> I think we should go ahead and voice strong objection to the ad hoc
>> process.  But that does not invalidate Kathy's efforts, which I think were
>> very useful nevertheless.  We need not allow her participation to be
>> interpreted as legitimizing the process, even on a "default" or "implicit"
>> or "de facto" basis, if we come out formally with a sharp protest.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>