[ALAC] Bad Actor Admission

[John Laprise]

So one of the complaints I saw online is that ICANN org legal which
presumably saw the GDPR train coming down the track had limited options
beyond waving a flag despite it's material impact. ICANN org spends a lot
of resources to stay abreast of international law but can only do something
at the last minute. (Epdp)

The more I think about it, the more giving ICANN org (pres?) the right to
ask the community to initiate a PDP has a kind of symmetry with the powers
of the enhanced community. Essentially, if the community and the board fail
to address an operational, material threat, ICANN org can hold the board
and the community to account.

Sent from my Pixel 3XL

John Laprise, Ph.D.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 11:45 AM John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not just staff...I was thinking ICANN org leadership...needs authority
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>
> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 9:02 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> John, do you really mean "ICANN org", ie staff, to make that decision?
>>
>> Alan
>> --
>> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>> On March 1, 2019 9:00:50 AM EST, John Laprise <jlaprise at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi and thanks Olivier,
>>>
>>> My apologies for not being clear. I was suggesting a possible bylaws
>>> change where in ICANN org can ask the community to initiate policy
>>> development when it sees an urgent/important need that the community has
>>> not noticed.
>>>
>>> Sent from my Pixel 3XL
>>>
>>> John Laprise, Ph.D.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 7:07 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear John,
>>>>
>>>> please be so kind to find my response below:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/03/2019 13:31, John Laprise wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well said Evan and I share your concerns. If memory serves, so does the
>>>> Board as MSM threats is a strategic planning issue. Musing upon waking I
>>>> was wondering whether it would help if we could implement a mechanism
>>>> whereby ICANN org could ask the empowered community to implement a pdp?
>>>> This might've avoided the current epdp issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The ICANN Board and the Empowered Community cannot implement or launch
>>>> PDPs relating to gTLDs. The "PDP" as such is a defined term for "Policy
>>>> Development Process" and in the context of the Generic Names, only the GNSO
>>>> can launch a PDP. In the context of Country Codes Names, when it relates to
>>>> global policy, the ccNSO can launch a PDP.
>>>> The Board can ask the GNSO to launch a PDP on a gTLD related issue, but
>>>> the GNSO can refuse.
>>>>
>>>> The Board can also ask the ICANN communities, SOs/ACs to launch a Cross
>>>> Community Working Group (CCWG). However, there are doubts expressed in the
>>>> GNSO that CCWGs should *not* be the basis for policy making for gTLDs as
>>>> all policy making for gTLDs should go through a PDP.
>>>>
>>>> It's a power game and the bottom line is who has the control of policy
>>>> processes on gTLDs.
>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>
>>>> Olivier
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20190301/3c5b4070/attachment.html>