[ALAC] Consensus Call: ALAC Statement on the Policy & Implementation Bylaws
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Sep 16 02:46:43 UTC 2015
At our ALAC meeting, I was requested to draft and submit a statement
on the Policy & Implementation Bylaws to be ratified by the Board. As
requested, the statement sends exactly the same message has we have
send to the two previous public comments the WG Recommendations.
Specifically we have concerns about whether the GNSO can properly
defend user and public interest if and when it may conflict with
contracted party needs, and we have concerns that implementation of
complex issues may take very long if there are multiple needs to
revert to the GNSO for additional deliberations.
Given the late timing of this statement, I asked that it be reviewed
by those in At-Large most deeply involved in the process.
Since we are supporting the recommended changes, but have concerns
about the long-term implications, the statement take the form of
formal advise to the Board that both of these concerns is that both
issues be monitored to detect any negative implications.
The statement is appended below.
With this message, I am issuing a Consensus Call on this statement to
end at 23:59 on Friday, 18 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. In the
absence of significant opposition, this statement will be deemed to
ALAC and At-Large representatives were very active in the Policy and
Implementation Working Group and the ALAC supports the recommendations.
The ALAC nonetheless has two concerns that have been raised
throughout the WG processes.
1. GNSO processes allow participation from all communities, and so in
theory can equitably balance all issues. However, given that
contracted parties can be greatly impacted by GNSO policy decision
outcomes, they have strong motivation to actively participate in
policy development working groups, and are often well funded to do
so. Those representing users and the public interest such as At-Large
or non-commercial users' constituencies are less able to participate
on the same level. Accordingly, it is possible for WG participation
to be unbalanced. Moreover, within the GNSO Council, the Contracted
House Stakeholder Groups acting in unison can block a super-majority
approval of any prospective recommendation. As a result, the ALAC has
concerns that if an issue were to arise where the public interest and
the needs of users is in conflict with the needs of contracted
parties, the GNSO may not be able to arrive at an equitable solution.
2. Although the principle of referring all policy-like issues
encountered during implementation back to the GNSO for resolution
supports the concept of the GNSO being the sole gTLD policy body, the
ALAC is concerned that for complex implementations such as the new
gTLD process and future directory services solutions, the number of
such referrals may unreasonably elongate the overall implementation process.
As stated above, the ALAC supports the recommended processes, but
Advises the Board to carefully monitor both issues to ensure that
user and public interests are appropriately considered and that the
implementation of complex policy can be accomplished in reasonable time-frames.
More information about the ALAC