[ALAC] On Process-versus-implementation

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hello all,

I am reminded -- quite correctly -- by Matt that in the last ALAC meeting,
Alan and I said we would work on a comment regarding feedback to the
GNSO Policy
& Implementation
WG<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=42734846>
.

What would nominally be called for right now is a point-by-point answering
of the questions sent by the GNSO working group to other community leaders.
But I find, after reading and re-reading the original GNSO solicittation --
that I cannot bring myself to do this.

To simply answer the questions -- to legitimize what is in my opinion a
fraudulent and captured process -- is an abdication of our roles within
At-Large.

It does seems clear to me that certain ICANN actions have been outside
(what I saw as) the intent of policy, and smack of certain interests
asserting influence on implementation despite lack of success at the policy
level.

(Some of this activity indicates breakage in the policy-making technique,
but that's a different matter)

The search for bounds is legitimate, but it is a sham to leave the search
for answers purely to the self-interested GNSO. This is legitimately an
issue of cross-community engagement -- involving all ACs. SOs, and indeed
ICANN staff -- and not to be left to the internal deliberations of the
squeakiest wheel. (And no, being non-voting observers in a GNSO process
does not count as cross-community.)

When the GNSO originally explored a P&I working group I was concerned about
its potential for captured agendas and prejudice; as I read the questions
in the initial solicitation I see my concerns were justified. I also note
that, once again, ALAC is being requested to respond to the agendas of
others rather than taking leadership on issues ourselves.

I am interested in ALAC producing a statement, but not like the one
originally envisioned. I would like the ALAC to send formal advice to the
Board requesting it to engage the *entire* community on better ways to have
implementation issues inform policy, and to have implementation guided by
both the letter and the spirit of established policy. This cannot be done
in a vacuum, the issues are cultural as well as technical or procedural,
and they and they certainly cannot be solved by the GNSO acting alone.

ICANN was on the right track in creating a Policy and Implementation
workshop <http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37133> at the Beijing meeting,
one that had same-level involvement from across the community. In that
workshop -- at which I was the ALAC participant -- it was agreed that
cross-constituency engagement was required. This is indeed as the
discussion *must* be, moving forward.

The Board of ICANN needs to take leadership on this issue and must not
leave its determination to just a single part of the community. I am happy
to work on such a statement for ALAC's consideration. But I have no
interest in validating what I see evolving into a GNSO power grab, and IMO
neither should the ALAC.

- Evan