[ALAC] On Process-versus-implementation

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Thu Oct 3 04:09:05 UTC 2013


Yessir!  Make it ++1; for analysis and proposed response.

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>



More information about the ALAC mailing list