A little wordsmithing below. Also, It looks like more could also be said about some of the specific language in the proposal. It is a cumbersome process that does not seem to achieve the goals set out to encourage recognition of new GNSO constituencies. Marc. ALAC Comments Draft Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies (dated 10 January 2011) At the direction of the ICANN Board's Structural Improvements Committee, the ICANN Staff opened a public consultation forum and invited community comments concerning the proposed "Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies." According to the request for comments, the main reason for this initiative is to promote paticipation in the GNSO and the policy development process. Specifically, the Board seeks to clarify the steps for a prospective organization to become a recognized GNSO constitutency. The proposal further seeks to (1) streamlime the evaluation criterion, (2) delegate more authority for constituency proposals to each GNSO stakeholder group, (3) estabish a flexible and specific process, and (4) set out a critera for the periodic review of the GNSO The ALAC submits these comments in response to this proposal (1) The ALAC supports the proposal to give the Stakeholder Group primary responsibilty for revieiwing and approving new stakeholder constituencies. [discuss] (2) However, the ALAC is concerned that the process proposed is overly cumbersome, inefficient, and will discourage participation As proposed, in the best case scenario, it will take at least 9-10 months from from initial application to final approval for a new GNSO constituency. This presumes that the Stakeholder group acts expeditiously and that the Board consider the application at its first regularly scheduled meeting. If the Board considers the application at a subsequent meeting, as is anticipated in the proposal, the review time will be almost 1.5 years. Should reconsideration be required, the time period reaches 2.5 years. Few potential Constituencies are likely to have the fortitude to withstand such delay. Moreover, the investment in participating in several years of ICANN meeting would be considerable. The problem with the process proposed is the long gap between the regularly scheduled ICANN board meeting. Therefore ALAC recommends that the Board routinely approve, at the first opportunity, all Constituency applications that were previously approved by the appropriate GNSO Stakeholder group. if the ICANN board fails to act on an approved application, it should provide an explicit reason for its decision. (3) ALAC recommends that the Proposal Make clear that this procedure ony applies to the Commercia and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder groups. At present only the Commercial and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups recognize the concept of Constituency. Both the Registry and Registrar Stakeholder Groups do not have such a concept. Presumably therefore, this draft process only applies to groups wishing to form Constituencies within the Commercial and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups and not within the contracted party Stakeholder Groups. The document should state this explicitly and unambiguously to ensure that expectations of potential applicants are set appropriately. On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
I was asked to draft a statement on the Draft Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies for the consideration of the ALAC. It is attached here.
The details of the process and the comment period can be found at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#newco-process-recognition. Comments are due by 04 March 2011.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
Alan<ALAC-GNSO-ConstituencyRecognition.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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: http://st.icann.org/alac