[At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Hello everyone,

thank you very much for your comments which have been very helpful.

I suggest appending the following text to the reply to Recommendation #23

 

·        The ICANN core value cited as the reason the Report provides
for more constituencies is about broad participation in policy making. 
The formation of more constituencies is not the only way to expand
participation, and it ignores the existence and role of the ALAC.  ALAC,
with its representatives from five regions, from a wide range of
language groups and myriad internet user groups is far better placed to
provide that broad participation. A better and more achievable way to
achieve the broad participation sought is to support and encourage ALAC
members to engage in policy processes.



Also adding the following main text in the General Comments Section:

--- cut here ---

Whilst the ALAC support almost all of the recommendations made in the
Westlake Report, the ALAC is concerned that the vast majority of the
recommendations focus on GNSO Working Groups and suggest making small
adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO Council's
bicameral structure.

Examples of areas for review are numerous and not limited to:

·        The current structure of the GNSO Council provides the ability
for a more united vote in the Contracted Party House whilst fragmenting
the Non-Contracted Party house to the point of imbalance. The
unprecedented growth of Contracted Parties caused by the new gTLD
Program has not been addressed. What might have been a homogeneous
Constituency might now be more heterogeneous and the potential
consequences of this change have not been studied. For example, City
TLDs are an entirely new breed of Registry; so are Brand TLDs. How does
this affect the current status quo? How would the people using City TLDs
have their voice heard

·        Other commenters in the At-Large Community have noted that the
proposals for more geographically balanced representation appeared to be
focused on finding new participants from outside the GNSO’s usual
territory. A question to ask is how many gTLD registries and gTLDs are
domiciled both legally and operationally in each of the ICANN regions
both before and after the recent expansion of gTLD space under the
GNSO's auspices. The Westlake Review misses on the opportunity to
potentially reveal a hidden pattern that the ICANN GNSO is
self-reinforcing the domain name business geopolitically and whether
that is underpinning the Westlake observation of the concentration of
the GNSO’s constituencies as North American and European.

·        GNSO Working Groups are open for all participants including
non-GNSO Constituency members – but the GNSO Council, thanks to its very
structure, has the ability to affect a working group’s results. Voting
is one of the ways to support or halt recommendations from a bottom-up PDP.

The ALAC believes that the complex issues of GNSO structure and
processes need to be studied now. The ALAC reminds the Reviewers of the
At-Large Future Challenges Working Group R3 White Paper
(http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-01oct12-en.htm
) drafted in 2012 and containing proposals that should be explored.

 

Reinforcing ALAC’s view is its recollection of several of its members
that during the first GNSO Review, it was understood that Constituencies
and the creation of “Stakeholder Groups” were going to be reviewed at
the next iteration. Tragically, this is missing from the current report.


--- cut here ---

As we only have 24 hours until the closing of the comment period, please
let me know ASAP if this is satisfactory.

Kindest regards,

Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20150724/22a66b99/attachment-0001.html>