[ALAC] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 4 November 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:


> Sadly (from my not-so-humble point of view), I have seen other cases where
> the GAC takes a position that I do not support in the same wholehearted
> manner as I do the advice on the Red Cross national names. And I would hope
> that the voice of reason would prevail in those cases with the GAC NOT
> getting its way. For that we need reasonable processes, checks and balances
> ​.
>

​It is notable to me that the GAC is no longer singling out special
 protection for the International Olympic Committee, which it originally
advanced at the same level of urgency as the Red Cross.

In the original PDP working group, it was ALAC alone (represented by Alan
and me) who differentiated between the two. In my optimistic moments I
would like to think we had an influence on the GAC's wise choice to
concentrate on the Red Cross.

The inevitable conclusion is that it is the process that is broken. A more
consultative and inclusive approach than existed might have yielded results
that would not have led to this impasse. But so long as ICANN has multiple
different classes of stakeholders -- differentiating policy makers and
advisors, for instance -- such friction is inevitable.

(For what it's worth, I also expressed this view during my interview with
the GNSO Review staff during the LA meeting, and proposed a more inclusive
structure for the GNSO.)

Certainly the GAC has been known to overreach on its requests, but we can
deal with that sufficiently if given the appropriate venue. I would remind
that the ALAC analysis of the GAC "scorecard" on the new gTLD process, some
years back, sometimes sided with the Board, sometimes with the GAC. We were
among
 the few in ICANN to
​analyze​
 every individual recommendation on its own merits
​ rather than "take sides".​

​Good-faith negotiation and consensus is possible if the will exists -- as
well as a framework that does not invite confrontation.