[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

[Carlton Samuels]

Dear Alan:
I have re-read your analysis and my position remains immutable.

For the record, I took a primer on the  GNSO policy development process in
preparation for co-chairing the Applicant Support WG.  I have also paid
keen attention to your tutorial given long before now on the workings of
the GNSO and reprised by request in this thread.

My understanding of that process is largely harmonized with yours with a
small exception. In my view, policy development in GNSO should, of right,
provide space for inclusion of the rest of the community, hence the
requirement for a formal PDP.

Regardless of that difference, I support the outcomes of your analysis. And
I urge my colleagues to ratify these and request the ALAC Chair proceed
to communicate our concerns in both detail and with the appropriate level
of alarm.

To me the principle is not conroversial. This idea that the ICANN Board may
only adopt a policy perspective handed to them by the GNSO must be
rejected. For to give this credence is to accept that the GNSO tail wags
the ICANN Board's dog.  And that corporate governance model would be
altogether exceptional, counterintuitive and dangerous.  Even for a California
corporation albeit dedicated to a multistakeholder model of policy
development in the global public interest!

This idea of an all-knowing priesthood (the GNSO) claiming this special
unitary and exclusive relationship which informs its exceptional
supplications on behalf of us mere mortals is offensive to reason.

- Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Alan Greenberg <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
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>