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
>
>