See embedded. Alan At 04/11/2014 03:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

On 4 November 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Sadly (from my not-so-humble point of view), I have seen other cases where the GAC takes a position that I do not support in the same wholehearted manner as I do the advice on the Red Cross national names. And I would hope that the voice of reason would prevail in those cases with the GAC NOT getting its way. For that we need reasonable processes, checks and balances ​.

​It is notable to me that the GAC is no longer singling out special protection for the International Olympic Committee, which it originally advanced at the same level of urgency as the Red Cross.

AG: That's because the IOC got pretty much all they wanted. As I think the RCRC would have if they had not forgotten the 189 country names for the great part of the PDP.

In the original PDP working group, it was ALAC alone (represented by Alan and me) who differentiated between the two. In my optimistic moments I would like to think we had an influence on the GAC's wise choice to concentrate on the Red Cross.

The inevitable conclusion is that it is the process that is broken. A more consultative and inclusive approach than existed might have yielded results that would not have led to this impasse. But so long as ICANN has multiple different classes of stakeholders -- differentiating policy makers and advisors, for instance -- such friction is inevitable.

(For what it's worth, I also expressed this view during my interview with the GNSO Review staff during the LA meeting, and proposed a more inclusive structure for the GNSO.)

Certainly the GAC has been known to overreach on its requests, but we can deal with that sufficiently if given the appropriate venue. I would remind that the ALAC analysis of the GAC "scorecard" on the new gTLD process, some years back, sometimes sided with the Board, sometimes with the GAC. We were among the few in ICANN to ​analyze​ every individual recommendation on its own merits ​ rather than "take sides".​

​Good-faith negotiation and consensus is possible if the will exists -- as well as a framework that does not invite confrontation.

AG: Correct. Which is why I have a real problem with the GAC declaring that specific issues are 100% within their domain and no one may second-guess them or even discuss them.