[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

[Alan Greenberg]

Sure.

The formal Policy Development Process (PDP) is a process enshrined in 
the ICANN Bylaws.

This policy MUST be followed if you want to make a policy that will 
immediately alter a Contracted Party contract. Both registry and 
registrar agreements have a specific list of things which can be 
modified by Consensus Policy (note the upper case C and P). This 
areas are sometimes referred to as issues that are "within the picket fence".

If the PDP steps are followed (whether for a picket fence Consensus 
Policy or for anything else), and if in the end the GNSO adopts the 
policy recommendations with a "supermajority" (I'll define that in a 
moment), then when the policy goes to the Board, the Board must adopt 
the policy unless a Board supermajority defeats it.

Supermajority: Normally in the ICANN context, this means greater than 
2/3. When the GNSO had a simpler structure, a GNSO supermajority was 
also greater than 2/3. Now with the two houses, a supermajority means 
2/3 of both house, or 3/4 on one house and a majority of the other.

So to go over that earlier thought, if the GNSO approves a PDP 
outcome with a supermajority, it would take 2/3 of the Board to 
overturn it, or stated another way, it only take 1/3 of the Board to 
ratify it. That means that unless to policy is so onerous that most 
of the Board feels it would be bad for ICANN, they are pretty much 
compelled to approve it.

So, in summary, a PDP is needed if you want to alter contracted party 
contracts (in certain areas) and/or you want to make it very 
difficult for the Board to ignore the recommended policy.

If neither of these is an issue, the GNSO can adopt a less specific 
method of adopting policy. Such a method could, in theory, be faster 
(assuming all parties could agree), or different fora could be used 
that the GNSO WG structure.

Note that there are those in the GNSO who do not agree with me and 
feel that ANY policy decision must follow the PDP steps. But I can 
find no document that says that and a number of people have said that 
my interpretation is a good one.

Is that any clearer?

Alan

At 02/09/2012 09:48 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

>Dear Alan,
>
>Can you please clarify what you mean by 'requiring policy 
>development,' but not a formal PDP?
>
>Thank you.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Rinalia
>
>Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>
>sent via galaxy tab
>On 3 Sep 2012 09:27, "Alan Greenberg" 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously 
>approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all 
>16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were 
>very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy 
>development. That ALAC statement can be found at 
><http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice.
>
>Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has 
>arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly 
>identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy 
>development, and which might required GNSO policy development.
>
>I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations 
>might require policy development. I have since revised this and 
>present it to you here.
>
>In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy 
>development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would 
>depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 
>does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of 
>the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP.
>
>The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the 
>recommendations in detail can be found at 
><http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf.
>
>It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board 
>Workshop scheduled for September 12-13.
>
>I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for 
>the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if 
>for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up.
>
>Alan
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)