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 >> >>