Linking this to the CCWG works I find this critical to the objective of defining who or what is ICANN in the scope of the Group’s Charter. May I suggest that this is taken into account on the next ccwg when reviewing the definition of what we understand as ICANN? Sorry to mix subjects but it seems like the perfect example of why we should be very careful on the task of defining the concept. Otherwise, the group’s work would be at stake if in the end ICANN, understood as staff and board, simply by-passes the group’s work and advice the same way it did on this case. all the best, León El 05/02/2014, a las 12:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> escribió:
As another of the signatories, I am more than a bit discouraged that such an issue of public interest was seemingly fully delegated to a staff function without due action by the Board.
I find particularly disturbing, the following excerpt from the minutes of the NGPC discussing the issue:
The Chair asked for input on merits of an alternative proposal (the Policy Advisory Board Model) submitted by a community member on how to implement the Category 1 Safeguards. Christine Willett and Dan Halloran provided an overview of the Policy Advisory Board model, and noted that the model represents a departure from the role of the registry operator as contemplated in the Applicant Guidebook and Registry Agreement.
The Committee considered whether it was more appropriate for individual registry operators to implement a Policy Advisory Board model, as opposed to ICANN imposing such a model on all of the registry operators for strings listed in the Category 1 Safeguard advice. Dan noted that some individual applications already include structures similar to the Policy Advisory Board model.
Heather indicated that the Policy Advisory Board proposal was circulated to the GAC and it may generate discussion during the Committee's upcoming meeting with the GAC. Ray Plzak suggested that the Committee be on the same page when approached by the community about this issue.
The PAB is indeed a departure of the model envisioned by the Applicant Guidebook. THAT IS WHY IT WAS PROPOSED!
Alan
At 05/02/2014 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
As a signatory to the original letter and having contributed to its text, I share Olivier's exasperation at how quickly and cavalierly this bottom-up, innovative proposal has been dismissed.
I had eventually come around to the view of Carlton Samuels and others that the ICANN Public Interest Committment regime is little but a toothless public relations stunt. The PAB proposal seems like one that could have a real effect, one that is sufficiently independent of ICANN to have real credibility.
I invite At-Large members to look at the proposal -- the original letter from members of At-Large and the Business Community<<https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en>https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en>-- and offer feedback. IMO, this is something worth advancing.
- Evan
On 5 February 2014 10:44, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ocl at gih.com> wrote:
Dear ALAC Colleagues,
further to the email below and the letter that was sent to the Board to call for a Public Consultation about the proposal of a Policy Advisory Board model, please be so kind to find attached the (very fast) response received from Christine Willett, Vice President of the gTLD Operations.
In summary: It's a "negative" with regards to a Public Consultation. It's "optional" if registry operators want to voluntarily implement such a model. Actually, it's a less than "optional"... it's a "not prohibited".
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 29/01/2014 16:43, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear ALAC colleagues,
please be so kind to find below and attached, a letter which was sent by Ron Andruff to Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the ICANN New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) requesting a Public Consultation to take place about the Policy Advisory Board model proposal which the ALAC has supported in the past.
Due to very short time-lines for a reply and since the letter asks for a Public Consultation in which the ALAC will be able to expand on the shortcomings of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) which we have already pointed out but were ignored, the ALAC Leadership Team (ALT) has given me the green light to sign the letter on their behalf. You'll also find a couple of people from our community co-signing in their individual capacity too. Indeed, many of the PICs filed are so weak, including clauses reserving the right for the gTLD Registry to ignore the commitments altogether, that this process is being grossly mishandled and the ALAC need to voice its concerns. * *Kind regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair **
*From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 18:36 *To:* '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>cherine.chalaby at icann.org' *Cc:* <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca; '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>peter.nettlefold at dbcdd.gov.au'; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Evan Leibovitch'; Marilyn Cade (<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>marilynscade at hotmail.com) *Subject:* RE: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation *Importance:* High
Dear Cherine,
Following on from discussions held in Beijing and Buenos Aires with a broad cross-section of the ICANN community, we understand that SGs/ACs/Constituencies want to provide public comments on how ICANN manages the proper roll out of regulated industries/sensitive string new gTLDs. The concept of the Policy Advisory Boards is currently being circulated more broadly within the community so the purpose of this email and attached letter is to follow up with the NGPC on this matter in support of the GAC Buenos Aires Communique reference to Public Interest Commitment Specifications (PICS).
We look forward to your response in due course.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
RA
*Ron Andruff*
*RNA Partners*
*www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
*From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 18:41 *To:* '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>cherine.chalaby at icann.org' *Cc:* <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>; '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>peter.nettlefold at dbcdd.gov.au'; Olivier Crepin-Leblond *Subject:* Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory Board model *Importance:* High
Dear Cherine,
During the NGPC discussions with the Government Advisory Committee at ICANN Beijing concerns emerged about how to ensure that new gTLDs from regulated industries/professions act in the public interest, and how they can demonstrate that they are fully supportive of the interests of those who are affected as users, not merely as registrants, in such gTLDs.
As you know, numerous applications for gTLDs that are representative of, or related to, regulated sectors were received by ICANN. In recognizing the GAC's interest in how regulated industry/sensitive string applicants will adequately address core concerns about the public interest impact of their applications, I have been working with others to develop approaches that are high level and standardized to a great extent. This approach would allow applicants for gTLD strings associated with regulated industries and professions (or other high risk sectors, such as .KIDS, etc.) to demonstrate how they will develop, implement, and enforce policies for the registration practices and standards in their respective gTLDs. In our view, these practices and standards should reflect the concerns of regulatory authorities, public interest organizations -- and most importantly, users -- to enable those gTLDs applicants to move ahead through the review process as expeditiously as possible. An appropriate Policy Advisory Board (PAB) should be established prior to approval of a new gTLD application by ICANN, as the practices and standards it develops will determine acceptable registrants and uses.
The attached Policy Advisory Board model documents provide a mechanism by which the GAC safeguard advice for protecting the public interest can be implemented to assure that, as Internet users interact with domains at new 'sensitive string' gTLDs associated with regulated industries and professions, they can be certain that the registrants are bona fide entities engaged in legitimate activities. This PAB approach establishes a standard framework for appropriate safeguards at sensitive string gTLDs that allows the flexibility to ensure that each Policy Advisory Board is reflective of a particular string and the concerns associated with it. The safeguards can be fully developed and implemented through the establishment of balanced and inclusive Policy Advisory Boards that can develop appropriate registrant eligibility criteria and registry policies -- those policies, in turn, can be incorporated within enforceable Public Interest Commitments Specifications (PICS) for the registry.
The focus of this model is establishing baseline criteria and a standard threshold of certainty for the public, and for governments, through a standardized approach to accountability and public interest. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, we hope it might inform the NGPC and GAC deliberations on PICS in a useful and productive way.
I would welcome further discussion on this matter should you feel that would be of benefit to your Committee.
Kind regards,
RA
*Ron Andruff*
*RNA Partners*
*www.rnapartners.com* <http://www.rnapartners.com>**
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
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...)