[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

[Alan Greenberg]

Carlton, a few thoughts below.

At 03/09/2012 01:20 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>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.

It is only in exceeding rare situation where the rest of the 
community is excluded from GNSO activities. It is sad but true that 
generally they do not avail themselves of this right. The only case 
in recent history where we were limited in participation was the STI, 
and ALL GNSO G and Cons were similarly limited, all in the interest 
of balanced representation and a sufficiently small group as to meet 
the tight time deadline. It was sufficiently successful that 
*perhaps* it should be used as a model for other efforts, but to date 
it has not.


>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!

I'd be careful about this. The GNSO has the Bylaw mandated role to 
"be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board 
substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains". To say 
that the Board has the right to create policy on its own, and without 
the involvement of ICANN stakeholders, is giving the Board just a bit 
too much power in my mind, and is counter to the MS-model. The Board 
DOES explicitly have the power to adopt policy on an interim basis in 
exceptional circumstances, but must then rely of on the GNSO to craft 
a more permanent solution.


>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.

The current GNSO Council model is explicitly not an all-knowing 
priesthood. It is mandated with managing or overseeing the policy 
development process which by necessity involves the entire GNSO 
(equivalent to the overall At-large).

Alan


>- Carlton
>
>==============================
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>=============================
>
>
>On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 8:24 PM, 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)