I too agree with Evan's analysis and conclusion. -------- Message d'origine -------- De : Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> Date : 02/10/2013 17:49 (GMT+08:00) A : Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc : ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Objet : Re: [ALAC] On Process-versus-implementation +1 @ Evan. On Oct 2, 2013 1:42 AM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello all,
I am reminded -- quite correctly -- by Matt that in the last ALAC meeting, Alan and I said we would work on a comment regarding feedback to the GNSO Policy & Implementation WG<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=42734846> .
What would nominally be called for right now is a point-by-point answering of the questions sent by the GNSO working group to other community leaders. But I find, after reading and re-reading the original GNSO solicittation -- that I cannot bring myself to do this.
To simply answer the questions -- to legitimize what is in my opinion a fraudulent and captured process -- is an abdication of our roles within At-Large.
It does seems clear to me that certain ICANN actions have been outside (what I saw as) the intent of policy, and smack of certain interests asserting influence on implementation despite lack of success at the policy level.
(Some of this activity indicates breakage in the policy-making technique, but that's a different matter)
The search for bounds is legitimate, but it is a sham to leave the search for answers purely to the self-interested GNSO. This is legitimately an issue of cross-community engagement -- involving all ACs. SOs, and indeed ICANN staff -- and not to be left to the internal deliberations of the squeakiest wheel. (And no, being non-voting observers in a GNSO process does not count as cross-community.)
When the GNSO originally explored a P&I working group I was concerned about its potential for captured agendas and prejudice; as I read the questions in the initial solicitation I see my concerns were justified. I also note that, once again, ALAC is being requested to respond to the agendas of others rather than taking leadership on issues ourselves.
I am interested in ALAC producing a statement, but not like the one originally envisioned. I would like the ALAC to send formal advice to the Board requesting it to engage the *entire* community on better ways to have implementation issues inform policy, and to have implementation guided by both the letter and the spirit of established policy. This cannot be done in a vacuum, the issues are cultural as well as technical or procedural, and they and they certainly cannot be solved by the GNSO acting alone.
ICANN was on the right track in creating a Policy and Implementation workshop <http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37133> at the Beijing meeting, one that had same-level involvement from across the community. In that workshop -- at which I was the ALAC participant -- it was agreed that cross-constituency engagement was required. This is indeed as the discussion *must* be, moving forward.
The Board of ICANN needs to take leadership on this issue and must not leave its determination to just a single part of the community. I am happy to work on such a statement for ALAC's consideration. But I have no interest in validating what I see evolving into a GNSO power grab, and IMO neither should the ALAC.
- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)