[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Wed Sep 5 04:44:19 UTC 2012


On 4 September 2012 22:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

The original ALAC statement on the report said we want it all. Period. The
> statement the ALAC made last week said that again, and added that six of
> the Recs are really high priority (in our mind) and that there was no
> reason the Board could not act quickly (and without GNSO creating a line of
> policy).
>
> As a follow-up, it was suggested that we not just address the whether we
> believe that GNSO policy development is needed on the other 10. The
> document addresses that.
>

Again, I understand this. I am simply offering the opinion that adding the
minutiae at this level weakens our core point that *we want it all*.

As I said, I am not disagreeing with the work that you have done, along
with Carlton's and Rinalia's additions. I just submit that this research is
more of a followup or appendix to the core statement than part of it. It's
supporting documentation offering suggestions on how to follow our advice,
but it's not the advice itself. I assert that there is a clear distinction
between core advice and its supporting documentation.

The critical issue is that we (like many others) keep on talking about the
> strength of the multi-stakeholder model.
>

I can't put words in the mouths of others. When I speak, it's on the
advantages of being multi-stakeholder in general. That said, I am no fan of
the current ICANN implementation which makes following industry advice
mandatory but non-conflicted public interest advice optional.

Here we are advocating (for the most part) that the Board can ignore the
> bulk of the stakeholders and just act (presumably with a comment period
> first). So we need to make our case that the circumstances reasonably allow
> such direct action.
>

I guess, then. we have a fundamental difference on what constitutes "the
bulk of stakeholders". In my mind ICANN has largely ignored the bulk of its
stakeholders as long as it has existed. What now exists in the GNSO is a
self-selected group of insiders that resists newcomers (let alone outreach)
and uses its undue influence to sway ICANN in ways that do not serve the
public good. The very fact that we even need to have a "debate" on having
robust WHOIS serves a stark evidence of this reality.

- Evan



More information about the ALAC mailing list