[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

Tue Sep 4 04:40:52 UTC 2012

At 03/09/2012 08:11 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>As per my vote on the ALAC statement, I supported the call for the 
>Board to take effective and expedient action on the entire set of 
>recommendations generated by the WHOIS Policy Review Team.  I have 
>no objections to the proposed policy analysis, which I know to be 
>based on your very extensive experience with the GNSO, but I do 
>suggest the following clarification tweaks for your consideration.
>
>Unilateral Action By the Board
>In the same statement, the ALAC highlighted several recommendations 
>that it believed the Board should/can take action on unilaterally 
>without resorting to the GNSO policy processes (formal or otherwise).
>To ensure that there is no misunderstanding with the analysis that 
>you are proposing, I suggest a third column with the header 
>"Unilateral Board Action Required" so that this point is reiterated 
>and not forgotten given that it is a crucial point.
>The point that Carlton makes about the role of the board in 
>policy-making and decision-making is not something that can/should 
>be addressed in depth at the level of policy analysis 
>here.  Nevertheless, the contention is important and the presence of 
>the suggested third column serves as a prelude to a future 
>intervention that the ALAC will presumably make over that issue 
>(should it wish to do so and after extensive internal debate, of course).

Perhaps I am missing some issue, but how I don't understand how a 
"No" in the present second column (well, 2nd other than the sequence 
numbers) be different from a "Yes" in the next column. If the Board 
need not go to the group to which is has delegated gTLD policy 
formulation, who else is there but the Board to act?

BTW, I used the term "unilateral" to some extent to wave a red flag 
in the face of the Board reminding them that they do have they do 
have authority to manage ICANN. That is technically correct. However, 
in the name of openness and the multi-stakeholder model, the Board 
will virtually always go out for public comment prior to taking any 
substantive action of the sort we are talking about here. And if that 
comment was overwhelmingly negative, they would be hard-pressed to 
proceed. So I would not recommend that we use the term again.

>
>
>Types of Policy Action (under "GNSO Policy Required?")
>Thank you for providing the clarification between a formal PDP and 
>other types of GNSO policy development.
>For clarity, because the PDP has a specific contextual meaning, I 
>suggest that you start each elaboration with either  a "YES (PDP)" 
>or  "YES - Non-PDP" or "NO" and then elaborate.  Currently, for some 
>of your elaboration, the "Yes" or "No" is at the bottom.
>In cases where the action is contextual, rather than saying 
>"perhaps", which flusters some people and fuel ambiguity, do go for 
>the more definitive "YES if ..." or "NO if ...."

As I pointed out, my description of what requires a PDP and what does 
not is not universally held. As a result of answering your previous 
question, my inclination is to go in the opposite direction to the 
one you suggest, and not make a very strong point of the belief that 
no PDP is needed. I would not want our overall evaluation to be 
passed over because of the form that the policy work will take 
(something that ultimately the Board has virtually no control over).

Alan

>Best regards,
>
>Rinalia
>
>On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM, 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)
>