Hi Milton

Thanks for putting this forward, insightful stuff that nicely restates and extends the views you've been articulating about GAC for some time.  You obviously hit some key nails right on the head.  My problem is, your tool of choice is something bigger than a hammer—more like a nuke.  I'm afraid I agree with Kathy that the consistently caustic tone, which would be fine in an IGP blog entry, seems entirely misplaced in a démarche from a SG that presumably would like to be able to communicate with and influence the GAC.  I've been talking to the chair and others about trying to organize some sort of interaction between us and them at a future meeting, something we've thus far failed to do, and a letter like this would seem likely to slam that door shut and lock in outdated misperceptions of NC.  I think it would be better to raise our concerns in a more neutral and less seethingly anti-governmental manner, without phraseology like "has attempted to take over the process" and "either unaware of or disliked the results of an open transparent MS process and now see to overturn it through what it calls 'advice'" and so on for five pages.  It feels like one of those old French Foreign Legion movies where they rip off some poor schmuck's epaulettes and send him off into the desert.  But GAC's not going off to the desert, and this could effectively send us instead.  I for one don't want to go, I'd rather stay in the game and try to get them to listen to us without their heads exploding.

If you're willing to entertain a collective process of tweaking that might dull some of your favorite blades, great, I'd participate and I imagine others would as well.  But if this is one where you feel too strongly about maintaining this "voice" to abide any meddling, my suggestion would be to go the IGP blog and public comment routes.  Either way, I don't see how something very close to the current formulation can be a consensus statement.

Up to you,

Bill

On May 6, 2013, at 5:34 AM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Joy, 
> I disagree, the human rights analysis is sound, hope you'll have an open mind and reconsider. 
> 
> First, the only so-called "rights-affirming" thing you cite is the bit about community applications. This reads:
> 
> "in those cases where a community, which is clearly impacted by a set of new gTLD applications in contention, has expressed a collective and clear opinion on those  applications, such opinion should be duly taken into account, together with all other  relevant information." 
> 
> I am not sure what right this affirms that is not already contained in ICANN's community application guidelines. This gives communities all kinds of priorities and rights to object, does it not? Can you tell me what is missing there that the GAC communique improves? Can you give me an example of a community clearly negatively impacted by a "set of new gTLD applications" that does not, under the current procedures, have a right to express a collective and clear opinion, and have that opinion taken into account? Have you noticed the "together with all other relevant information" disclaimer? So in this case, the GAC is simply echoing what already exists. 
> 
> However, if you believe in individual as well as collective rights you will also recognize that this contains some danger, some undesirable elements regarding free expression rights. Because groups (and individuals) can always claim that they are "impacted" by an application simply because they don't like it, or think that it might be used to convey expression of speech critical of them. 
> 
>> While I agree that there are some serious issues with other aspects,
>> overall I think the draft comment really strikes the wrong tone and
>> won't be persuasive. I don't have the bandwidth to look at this in
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] Actually there are people in the GAC who think they have overreached and this will reinforce that sense. I know for a fact that there are also people on the board, and close to the board, who strongly agree. It will be persuasive to key members of the Board. And that is what matters. The GAC leadership is hopeless anyway. I don't care what they think, except that I want them to know that we are pushing back very strongly against what is essentially a takeover of the policy process.
> 
>> 1. Get rid of the whole preamble and all the paras on GAC and the multi-
>> stakeholder process. it doesn't add anything substantive to the specific
>> advice comments.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] Nope. That is the most important part of the comments. I'm disappointed that we don't have a common understanding of the political environment, but I am pretty confident that I am right about this. There are geopolitical dangers here that you don't seem to appreciate. Ask yourself why ICANN is making this unprecedented request for public comment on GAC advice. We need to raise the larger issue regarding the role of the GAC.
> 
>> 2. On the preamble - the first para made no sense to me: how does asking
>> for HR principles to be abided by make a mockery of HR? suggest you make
>> it clearer.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] OK. Will try. But first, explain to me what you do not understand about the distinction between lip service and actual respect for rights? Is it not incredibly obvious that those words about HR principles were thrown in as a kind of CYA (that means "cover your ass" in American slang) to divert attention from or provide cover for the actual requests that are being made? 
> 
> The bad parts of the GAC advice are extremely specific. They constitute clear instructions or recipes for systematic invasion of privacy, suppression of free expression, over-regulation of domain name registries and users. What you consider to be the "good" parts are general and provide no clear means of implementation. Which one do you think will win out? 
> 
> If someone in a position of authority says: "take this man to Guantanamo Bay, tie his ankles together at all times, put a hood over his head, beat him if he complains, deprive him of sleep at night by playing ugly music at 80 decibels" and then adds, "oh, and be sure to abide by all international conventions regarding human rights while you're at it" how rights-affirming would you consider that to be? Just asking.
> 
>> 5. I don't agree with the statements on closed generics - and if we
>> don't have a shared NCSG position i think better to leave out or submit
>> as personal comments together with those who want to sign on.
> 
> [Milton L Mueller] There are no statements in favor of or against closed generics in the statement as it stands. There is an observation that the GAC is contradictory: demanding careful vetting and restrictions on who can register in so-called open TLDs, and then coming out against any restrictions or vetting when it is done privately and voluntarily. Interesting contradiction, I wonder how you justify it? Try to look beyond your specific position on closed generics and focus on the more fundamental issue, which is "who decides" and "how is this decided?" If you think that these kinds of process disruptions and random interventions by GAC are fine as long as one they end up supporting one or two of your favorite positions, then we are unlikely to ever agree.