[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Re: [gnso-osc-ops] DOI

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Actually less hypothetical than I thought.  Writing the DOI convinced me that I should write the article, and am using the DOI as the introduction to the article.  So at this point, I am writing an article on ICANN/GNSO policy processes, their development and implementation and may gain some advantage, or perhaps disadvantage, since advantage comes in both positive and negative directions.

More than anything I am exploring the rules we make, the requirements we put on people and trying to follow them to their logical conclusions.

Cheers,

a.

On 23 Sep 2010, at 10:04, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> This is rather hypothetical. You could just as well pre-confess to the possibility of using services originating from Elbonia (Lower), an underdeveloped economy, by an NGO not yet in existence, in a script not yet encoded in Unicode, in a language you don't yet know.
> 
> I think it unlikely that Indians will be considered economically distinct from the rest of North America, or Appalachia for that matter, and that the "developing countries" language, which appears to be suggestive, not proscriptive, in Recommendation 20, the substance of the SOAC AG, will extend to applications intending to serve the needs of North American Indians, or marginalized non-indigenous populations. Therefore, I see no _real_ "interest" to declare in the SOAC AG context. Fee reduction, ability to apply for an ASCII string, a ᎣᏏᏲ string, and a ᓂᓴᓕ string (under either (a) or (b) approaches) would be wicked useful. But as these are improbable, there is no material "interest" in advocating these as generally available to applications that do meet the eventual interpretation of the characterization in Recommendation 20.
> 
> So I _do_not_ declare an interest that does not currently exist, nor is likely to exist.
> 
> To pick another scab, when eligibility closed for a certain unaffiliated elected position, I asked ICANN Counsel for guidance, as my employ with CORE ended three or four days after the date at which a would-be candidate had to meet the unaffiliated condition. My non-affiliation was _certain_ at a date only days after a date certain, for an election that would not take place for months, for a responsibility or office that would not commence until 1 January, 2011.
> 
> The guidance ICANN Counsel offered was that status at the date certain was controlling.
> 
> Therefore, something as certain as a prospective interest a week in the future, or the prospective lack of interest, again, a mere week in the future, was not relevant to the issue of eligibility to stand for election.
> 
> I suggest that your approach is too speculative, though I'm not entirely happy with the guidance ICANN Counsel offered me only a few weeks ago, which is at least curable by revised SOI/DOI as material interests become actual rather than prospective.
> 
> Eric
>