This will get redundant soon, but I'm still with Dan ;) Nicolas On 12/6/2012 11:23 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: > 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 >>> >>>