[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
>​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.

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
>  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.

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