[ALAC-LT] URGENT Statement on P&I Bylaws

Maureen Hilyard maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
Tue Sep 15 18:03:18 UTC 2015

Fine by me too.. it would be assumed that if the application of the GNSO's
proposed Data and Metrics procedure is adhered to that all decisions will
be made based on a model of openness and transparency that will dissuade
any attempts of highjacking by contracted parties.

On 15/09/2015 6:48 am, "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC-ExCom mailing list
> ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-excom/attachments/20150915/499b817a/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC-ExCom mailing list