[ALAC] Draft ALAC statement on Draft Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies
rotenberg at epic.org
Tue Feb 22 14:46:27 UTC 2011
A little wordsmithing below. Also, It looks like more could also be
said about some of the specific language in the proposal.
It is a cumbersome process that does not seem to achieve
the goals set out to encourage recognition of new GNSO
Draft Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies (dated 10
At the direction of the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements
Committee, the ICANN Staff opened a public consultation forum and
invited community comments concerning the proposed "Process for
Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies." According to the request
for comments, the main reason for this initiative is to promote
paticipation in the GNSO and the policy development process.
Specifically, the Board seeks to clarify the steps for a prospective
organization to become a recognized GNSO constitutency. The proposal
further seeks to (1) streamlime the evaluation criterion, (2)
delegate more authority for constituency proposals to each GNSO
stakeholder group, (3) estabish a flexible and specific process, and
(4) set out a critera for the periodic review of the GNSO
The ALAC submits these comments in response to this proposal
(1) The ALAC supports the proposal to give the Stakeholder Group
primary responsibilty for revieiwing and approving new stakeholder
(2) However, the ALAC is concerned that the process proposed is
overly cumbersome, inefficient, and will discourage participation
As proposed, in the best case scenario, it will take at least 9-10
months from from initial
application to final approval for a new GNSO constituency. This
presumes that the Stakeholder group acts expeditiously and that the
consider the application at its first regularly scheduled meeting.
If the Board considers the application at a subsequent meeting, as
is anticipated in the proposal, the review time will be almost 1.5
reconsideration be required, the time period reaches 2.5 years.
Few potential Constituencies are likely to have the fortitude to
withstand such delay. Moreover, the investment in participating in
several years of ICANN meeting would be considerable.
The problem with the process proposed is the long gap between the
regularly scheduled ICANN board meeting. Therefore ALAC recommends
that the Board routinely approve, at the first opportunity, all
Constituency applications that were previously approved by the
appropriate GNSO Stakeholder group. if the ICANN board fails to act
on an approved application, it should provide an explicit reason for
(3) ALAC recommends that the Proposal Make clear that this procedure
ony applies to the Commercia and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
At present only the Commercial and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups
recognize the concept of Constituency. Both the Registry and
Registrar Stakeholder Groups do not have such a concept. Presumably
therefore, this draft process only applies to groups wishing to form
Constituencies within the Commercial and Non-Commercial Stakeholder
Groups and not within the contracted party Stakeholder Groups. The
document should state this explicitly and unambiguously to ensure
that expectations of potential applicants are set appropriately.
On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> I was asked to draft a statement on the Draft Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies for the consideration of the ALAC. It is attached here.
> The details of the process and the comment period can be found at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#newco-process-recognition. Comments are due by 04 March 2011.
> If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
More information about the ALAC