ICANN staff proposal for further concessions to IPC-BC

[Nicolas Adam]

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
>>>
>>>