AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level

[Nicolas Adam]

It's baffling to me that the contracted party house would think that
appeasing GAC will get them any kind of relief from GAC-backed LEA's
demand (which, I would be inclined to think, should be among the
issue-axis most important to them and most antogonistic with regard GAC).

Perhaps the contracted parties have been taken for granted our (NCSG)
(op)position to some policy position that they are also opposing. Maybe
with should remind them that we that feel in the long run, eroding
GNSO's process is unacceptable. For instance, as much as I am against
most LEA's overreaching demands, I would be willing to say that I would
swallow my opposition to such proposal if they cannot see their own
interest when it comes to GNSO's role and preserving ICANN's
(legitimizing) processes.

Nicolas

On 2/3/2012 11:59 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> Seems to me we are at a classic choice point: is it productive to try to
> work within the system or not?
>
> If we participate and push back against the worst, and perhaps succeed in
> avoiding the worst but still end up with something bad, does that start us
> on the slippery slope to ruin, institutionally?
>
> Can we "have our cake and eat it too" -- simultaneously finding some way to
> make a meaningful statement against the "process" as a whole, while still
> working within the process such as it is to ameliorate the downside to the
> extent possible?
>
> If not, then is it more effective in the long run to actively recuse
> ourselves from the process in protest, to try to de-legitimize the
> institution and policies that result from the process, abjectly?
>
> Or is it more effective to participate, and try to push back against the
> worst while making what could be an ineffectual protest statement?
>
> I agree with those who say there should be no special (especially no ad
> hoc) consideration for IOC/RC in principle.  At the very least, it should
> not be ad hoc under any circumstances -- if so, say goodbye to the "rule of
> law" such as it ever existed at ICANN.
>
>
> At the end of the day, if I thought total recusal would make a difference,
> I would favor it.  But I'm not sure it would do anything other than make
> NCSG (or perhaps only NCUC?) even less relevant in the total scheme of
> things, and certainly within GNSO.
>
> For those who still believe in the principle of "the consensus process" how
> do we use whatever influence we have to shift the consensus in our
> direction?  If we abandon the ad hoc process, by virtue of that we also
> abandon the consensus process and effectively declare it absent and void.
>
> I'm not sure what the correct source of action is, here, but it's sounding
> as if this choice may have lasting institutional ramifications, at least
> with regard to NCSG's relationship to GNSO and ICANN as a whole.
>
> Just how extraordinary is this ad hoc process, compared to prior BoardStaff
> actions?  Is it really unprecedented?
>
> Is it worth really recusing, or do we play and protest the best we can?
>
> 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.