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 > >