[ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.

[Alan Greenberg]

At 05/09/2012 12:44 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>On 4 September 2012 22:05, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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.

Then what are we differing on? This table was never meant to be more 
than a supplement to the "advice". That is why in my opening note I 
suggested that Olivier might just call for an "any objections" 
instead of submitting this to a formal vote.


>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.

We do not basically disagree on this. The structure of the GNSO is 
not what I believe it should be and I hope it will change (and will 
work to see it happen. But we have little choice but to work within 
the Bylaws that we now have. There is a place for that battle (I 
hope), but for now we are simply trying to get the Board to implement 
the Whois report as fast the system allows, and our reinforcing that 
the GNSO does not need to be involved in the bulk of it will hopefully help.

When I said "the bulk of the stakeholders" above, that was us as 
well. We are saying that the Board should act without further 
community involvement other than a final comment period. We believe 
that is the correct course of action here. but in some other 
situation, the Board acting without significant community involvement 
is exactly the wrong thing to do. That's what got us digital archery.

Alan

>- Evan