[ALAC-LT] URGENT Statement on P&I Bylaws
langdonorr at gmail.com
Tue Sep 15 16:48:23 UTC 2015
Fine by me on a quick once over read...
On 16 Sep 2015 2:18 am, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> I was charged to write the statement on the Policiy and Implementation
> Bylaws in full accordance with the ALAC's previous statement on the issue.
> The statement was due last Friday, but unfortunately I could not get it
> done. Marika has been informed that it is coming and what the gist is, but
> we need to formally submit this ASAP.
> Please comment if anything is radically wrong with the following.
> ALAC and At-large representatives were very active in the Policy and
> Implementation Working Group and the ALAC supports the recommendations.
> The ALAC nonetheless has two concerns that have been raised throughout the
> WG processes.
> 1. All GNSO processes allow participation from all communities, and
> so in theory can equitably balance all issues. However, given that
> contracted parties have a very large stake in GNSO policy decision
> outcomes, they are in a position to, and often funded for significant
> participation. Those representing the public interest are less able to
> participate on the same level. Accordingly, it is possible for the WG
> participation to be unbalanced. Moreover, within the GNSO Council, the two
> contracted Stakeholder Groups acting in unison can block a super-majority
> approval of any prospective recommendation. As a result, the ALAC has
> concerns that if an issue were to arise where the public interest and the
> needs of users is in conflict with the needs of contracted parties, the
> GNSO may not be able to arrive at an equitable solution.
> 2. Although the principle of referring all policy-like issues
> encountered during implementation back to the GNSO for resolution supports
> the concept of the GNSO being THE gTLD policy body, the ALAC is concerned
> that for complex implementations such as the new gTLD process and future
> directory services solutions, the number of such referrals may unreasonably
> elongate the overall implementation process.
> As stated above, the ALAC supports the recommended processes, but ADVISES
> the Board to carefully monitor both issues to ensure that user and public
> interests are appropriately considered and that the implementation of
> complex policy can be accomplished in reasonable time-frames.
> ALAC-ExCom mailing list
> ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ALAC-ExCom