[CCWG-ACCT] [ccnso-foiwg] GAC discussion about FOIWG report

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Patricio,

Fortunately this is simple to solve, the GAC members on the FoI Wg (Heather Dryden, Jayantha Fernando, Frank March, Alice Munyua, Suzanne Radell) can explain to them what we actually did. 

And, as far as I read this we did NOT interpret the GAC Principles. The DRD Wg (its predecessor) analyzed it (and RFC-1591 and "ICP-1") and compared it with actual practices.

The FoI Wg interpreted RFC-1591 and clearly stated:
• Recognising that ultimate authority on public policy for any country is its government and legislature, nothing in the FOIWG's report is intended to, or should be taken to, constrain or limit applicable law in respect of matters relating to country-code top-level domain names in the country or territory represented by the particular two-letter code or IDN string, or in the state of incorporation/place of business of the IANA operator. 

• Nothing in the Framework of Interpretation limits or constrains the applicability of the 2005 GAC "Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains". 


My understanding is also that the Charter was considered by the GAC, resulting in the appointment of said GAC members to the FoI Wg and their significant contributions to the work of the FoI Wg).

I think we need to require clarification with regards to predictability of the GAC (which is an ICCAN accountability issue), as there are some other working groups where GAC has appointed members or liaisons, and if their participation is unsanctioned (for the lack of a better word) we need to review their presence. 

I am a member of the CCWG-Accountability, the mailing list of which "reads" in copy.

el

Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Feb 7, 2015, at 20:03, Patricio Poblete <ppoblete at nic.cl> wrote:
> 
> There seems to be people in the GAC objecting to the FOIWG providing an "interpretation" of existing policy:
> 
> https://twitter.com/sgdickinson/status/563996893651275778
> https://twitter.com/sgdickinson/status/563997005848920064
> https://twitter.com/sgdickinson/status/563997332618739712
> 
> Given that the word is in the name of the WG and also in its charter, one would have expected the issue to be raised sometime before, during the zillion times we bored them to death with our updates...
> 
> Patricio

> [...]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150207/41a9b8c3/attachment.html>