[EURO-Discuss] R: R: WG: Regional Advice requested. Association Dot. HIV 173 / Germany

[Roberto Gaetano]

Thanks, Bill, I like to be considered "postmodern" ;>)
The point is not "disaggregating organizations to fit the boxes", but from
my point of view to frame the boxes in the best way to optimize
contribution.
I can hardly think of organizations that have hundreds of thousands of
employees and presence in all continents (or ICANN regions) where the point
of view can be summarized by one contribution in one single "box".
To make a practical example, how can the IP lawyers of, say, IBM, bring
their views in ICANN if they are allowed only to be in the business
constituency? And then, if they run a TLD, must they withdraw from BC or
abstain from applying as registry? How can ICANN take benefit from the ideas
that come from the different souls of, let's say, Google or Microsoft, if we
need to frame the whole company to be in just one single box?
I know it is a difficult issue, but I am just wondering what would be the
best approach for making ICANN more inclusive of all opinions.
Back to the practical problem at hand, can we for instance accept the new
ALS, requiring that they recuse themselves from participating in issues
related to registry and registrar operations?
Cheers,
R.


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di William
Drake
Inviato: mercoledì 19 dicembre 2012 18:04
A: Discussion for At-Large Europe
Cc: 'At-Large Staff'
Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] R: WG: Regional Advice requested. Association
Dot. HIV 173 / Germany

Hi

On Dec 19, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Bill,
> You are raising an interesting point.
> There are two parts in a registry: the policy manager and the operator.
> My view is that the operator belongs to the registry constituency, 
> while the policy manager belongs to whatever constituency or group it 
> would naturally fit. However, this is not the current approach of 
> ICANN, therefore we could have such conflicts.
> You do remember the discussions about the GNSO review. In that 
> circumstance I tried to explain my concept of stakeholder group as a 
> system where we could expand participation and widen the points of 
> view and contributions. I made the example of a company where the 
> legal department could contribute to the IP constituency, the research 
> department to a possible technical research constituency, the 
> marketing department to the business constituency, and so on, 
> enriching the global contribution to the ICANN policy making process.

So now we're disaggregating organizations to fit the boxes?  Even though the
departments are part of a unified entity/mission?  I dunno
you're a more
postmodern thinker than I, I guess.

> If this approach is taken, there will be no problem in accepting the 
> application. Otherwise, we need to have the opinion of the General 
> Counsel about the potential conflict of interest.

Well certainly in GNSO land and for the board the question of where these
applicants go is a bit vexing and will require some clear guidelines.   I
never heard At Large mentioned as an option, so this presents an interesting
test to think about.

On Dec 19, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:

> Thanks for your questions and comments, Bill. Having a closer look at
their application form and the website, you will see that dotHIV is a
non-for profit association as well promoting sensitisation, networking and
inclusion of those target groups. They work with other relevant groups in
the field but are specialized on Internet issues. According to their
application form (and what I discussed with Carolin Silbernagl, the person
in-charge), what you call a "TLD operator" is a small side initiative of
their activities. Actually, they applied as a non-profit association in a
non-commercial capacity -- otherwise your comments would be applicable.

It's not obvious to me why their non-profit status matters.  From an ICANN
standpoint, they are applicants to operate a gTLD, that's why they're here.

This is a good one to chew on, might be worth taking the discussion to a
broader level


Bill
_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org