My reply (issued purely on my own behalf). I strongly support this move, since to not do so implies that the GNSO PDP is the ONLY way to enact gTLD policy, and I strongly feel that this should not be the case. There must be faster methods when the rigour of the PDP is not required, or where the WG model has proven to be unsatisfactory. As you will see, I am also supporting the de facto process of having the community involved in substantive implementations. This has been the practice until the recent TM+5o proposal, and it is essential that staff do not have the option of ignoring the community if something does not meet the "policy" definition. That makes it a "multi-stakeholder unless we want to ignore them model" and that is not what we all put our time and effort in for. I request that the ALAC take time in its future discussions (whether e-mail, wiki, teleconference or Durban) to discuss these issues and consider issuing advice to the Board. Alan
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:58:31 -0400 To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>, "'GNSO Council (council@gnso.icann.org)'" <council@gnso.icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [council] Discussion Item: Changes to ICANN Bylaws Cc: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>
As a member of the PDP development team and as someone who has long preached that the formal PDP should not be the only way to develop policy (if it is not to be a picket-fence Consensus Policy or utilized the 2/3 rejection clause), I support this.
Although perhaps this is a separate discussion, I would go further, and put an onus on ICANN and the Board to discus substantive issues of implementation with the GNSO and the community. The multi-year New gTLD implementation and the STI in particular establish this precedent, and it should be enshrined in the Bylaws.
Alan (speaking on my own behalf)
At 06/06/2013 11:29 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
All,
In the rationale used in the BGCs recommendation against the NCSGs Reconsideration Request, the BGC argues that:
There is no defined policy process within ICANN that requires Board or staff consultation with the GNSO Council if the Board or staff is acting in contravention to a statement made by the GNSO Council outside of the Policy Development Process. Therefore, even if staffs action here was in direct contravention to the GNSO Council statement in a letter, the Bylaws requirement for consultation does not apply
Technically and legally, the BGC is correct. As much as this goes against the very nature of the multi-stakeholder model (and frankly the message ICANN delivers to the world), the ICANN Board/staff is free to ignore the GNSO Council (and thus has no accountability for these actions). This is true despite the fact that the Bylaws also state: There shall be a policy-development body known as the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains. Therefore, what the BGC is telling us is that despite the fact that the Bylaws charges the GNSO with developing and recommending substantive policies, it can ignore the GNSO community at any time if the issue did not go through a formal PDP.
I personally believe that is broken. Therefore, I would like for the Council to consider recommending to the ICANN Board a change to the Bylaws for an additional measure of accountability that at a minimum would require some form of consultation if the GNSO Council (on behalf of the GNSO Community) issues a recommendation or develops policy outside of a formal PDP. As the former chair of the PDP Working Group that helped revise the PDP process, I can tell you that we were encouraged by the community to allow other mechanisms for developing policy outside of formal PDPs. We spent countless hours on this very topic. Yes, if it does not go through a formal PDP, it may not trigger a 2/3 Board vote to overturn the recommendation, but it was never our intention that after going through that process, the Board to IGNORE the GNSO Community. At a time when the community is trying to find ways to develop policies outside of the stringent PDP, this is NOT an incentive for doing that.
Therefore, I would like to see the following changes made to the Bylaws (no pride in authorship here so feel free to suggest other words). This is language that is VERY similar to the language the GAC has in the Bylaws:
The substantive policies and recommendations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization relating to generic top-level domains shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies, whether or not the policy development process as set forth in Article X, section 6 were followed. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the GNSO policies or recommendations, it shall so inform the GNSO and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The GNSO and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the GNSO recommendations or policies were not followed.
If the multi-stakeholder model truly has any meaning, I view these changes as non-controversial and essential to preserve what so many have so long been advocating.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz