[ALAC] Letter from Steve Crocker to GAC Chair regarding GNSO/GAC role in gTLD policy development
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Nov 4 20:36:33 UTC 2014
See embedded. Alan
At 04/11/2014 03:07 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>On 4 November 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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
>â.
>
>
>âIt 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.
AG: That's because the IOC got pretty much all
they wanted. As I think the RCRC would have if
they had not forgotten the 189 country names for the great part of the PDP.
>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
>âanalyzeâ
> every individual recommendation on its own merits
>â rather than "take sides".â
>
>âGood-faith negotiation and consensus is
>possible if the will exists -- as well as a
>framework that does not invite confrontation.
AG: Correct. Which is why I have a real problem
with the GAC declaring that specific issues are
100% within their domain and no one may second-guess them or even discuss them.
More information about the ALAC
mailing list