I concur with MM that we need to ask the Biard to reject the GAC advice.

Perhaps a bit of toning down as per edits MM made below might be useful.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> So, Kathy,
> I left the closed generic section unfinished because I wasn't sure how to handle it. Nothing is really in there at the moment, or at least nothing I am committed to.
>
> I am, however, certainly hoping that you are NOT saying that if the GAC intervenes to support a position that you or one of your clients likes, it's all OK? I am sure you appreciate the process issues here.  I don't think "let the GAC intervene arbitrarily whenever they do what we like" is a position that could gain anything near consensus in NCSG. Nor is that in the public interest. You may have to defer to rough consensus on this point.
>
> I am eager to hear the views of David Cake and others who oppose my position on closed generics but, I suspect, would not support the GAC intervening to impose its own view in this way. Would like to hear suggestions on how to handle the section on restricted TLDs. I think it could be pretty simple: we say "there are people in NCSG who oppose closed generics and there are others who think they are fine and allowable under current policy, but it's not really the GAC's call at this point."
>
> The specific usage of the term 'ignorant' is neither insulting nor inaccurate:
>
> "[GAC] was either ignorant of or disliked the results of an open, transparent, multi-stakeholder process, and now seeks to overturn it through what it calls "advice."
>
> The accusation here is that they either did not like or were not aware of specific deliberations and positions taken by the GNSO. In other words, accusing them of being ignorant or unaware is the kindest possible interpretation - it would be worse to say that they knowingly overrode ICANN established policy.
>
> I'd be happy to replace ignorant with 'unaware of'. But I think the GAC's general isolation and ignorance - both ignorance as "lack of knowledge" and ignorance as "ignoring, oblivious to" - of the bottom up processes going on around it is recognized by many as a huge problem. Having sat in many GAC meetings, "ignorant" is a kind but often accurate word for what goes on there - especially when it comes to key substantive issues that have benefited from balanced GNSO debates. You should have heard the incredibly uninformed things that were being said about IGO name protection, to take just one example, in the GAC-Board interchange in Beijing.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 5:12 PM
>> To: Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Initial draft of comments on GAC Beijing
>> Communique
>>
>> Sorry Milton, I disagree with the tone and tenor of the comments.  I
>> think the GAC is many things, but not ignorant. This same phrase got
>> many people upset when used against us for disagreeing with others in
>> this constituency.  Also many of us opposed Closed Generics and the GAC
>> has taken a strong stand on this that, frankly, I support -- and the GAC
>> stance supports the vast majority of the community.
>>
>> Not sure of how to proceed from here, but overall, I find some sections
>> of the GAC right on target, and others far from it (the latter being the
>> Whois comments, for example).  So I would not shoot the whole thing.
>>
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>> :
>> > Dear all
>> > I have gotten a good start on some comments on the GAC Beijing
>> communique. Some of you may not yet appreciate how significant it is for
>> the board to ask for public comment on a GAC advice. In this case, it
>> seems that the GAC has really overstepped its bounds, and if you read my
>> comment draft you will get a better idea why I think so. A strong
>> response from the ICANN "community" will help overcome this subversive
>> document.
>> >
>> > I would very much like to see the NCSG as a whole speak with a unified
>> voice on this topic.
>> >
>> > Take a look at this URL.
>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5Cr
>> > RPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing
>> >
>> > At this stage, I would refrain from making direct edits in the text,
>> but do make comments regarding the text. We can also discuss and debate
>> on the NCSG list. I have the GAC advice downloaded so do not have a link
>> for it. If someone else can quickly supply one please do so, otherwise I
>> will dig it up in a day or two.
>> >
>> > Milton L. Mueller
>> > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet
>> > Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org