Consensus Call: ALAC Statement on the Policy & Implementation Bylaws
At our ALAC meeting, I was requested to draft and submit a statement on the Policy & Implementation Bylaws to be ratified by the Board. As requested, the statement sends exactly the same message has we have send to the two previous public comments the WG Recommendations. Specifically we have concerns about whether the GNSO can properly defend user and public interest if and when it may conflict with contracted party needs, and we have concerns that implementation of complex issues may take very long if there are multiple needs to revert to the GNSO for additional deliberations. Given the late timing of this statement, I asked that it be reviewed by those in At-Large most deeply involved in the process. Since we are supporting the recommended changes, but have concerns about the long-term implications, the statement take the form of formal advise to the Board that both of these concerns is that both issues be monitored to detect any negative implications. The statement is appended below. With this message, I am issuing a Consensus Call on this statement to end at 23:59 on Friday, 18 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. In the absence of significant opposition, this statement will be deemed to be ratified. Alan ============= ALAC and At-Large representatives were very active in the Policy and Implementation Working Group and the ALAC supports the recommendations. The ALAC nonetheless has two concerns that have been raised throughout the WG processes. 1. GNSO processes allow participation from all communities, and so in theory can equitably balance all issues. However, given that contracted parties can be greatly impacted by GNSO policy decision outcomes, they have strong motivation to actively participate in policy development working groups, and are often well funded to do so. Those representing users and the public interest such as At-Large or non-commercial users' constituencies are less able to participate on the same level. Accordingly, it is possible for WG participation to be unbalanced. Moreover, within the GNSO Council, the Contracted House Stakeholder Groups acting in unison can block a super-majority approval of any prospective recommendation. As a result, the ALAC has concerns that if an issue were to arise where the public interest and the needs of users is in conflict with the needs of contracted parties, the GNSO may not be able to arrive at an equitable solution. 2. Although the principle of referring all policy-like issues encountered during implementation back to the GNSO for resolution supports the concept of the GNSO being the sole gTLD policy body, the ALAC is concerned that for complex implementations such as the new gTLD process and future directory services solutions, the number of such referrals may unreasonably elongate the overall implementation process. As stated above, the ALAC supports the recommended processes, but Advises the Board to carefully monitor both issues to ensure that user and public interests are appropriately considered and that the implementation of complex policy can be accomplished in reasonable time-frames.
I have no objection and agree Best Sandra (Note: This message was sent from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.)
Am 16.09.2015 um 04:46 schrieb Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
At our ALAC meeting, I was requested to draft and submit a statement on the Policy & Implementation Bylaws to be ratified by the Board. As requested, the statement sends exactly the same message has we have send to the two previous public comments the WG Recommendations. Specifically we have concerns about whether the GNSO can properly defend user and public interest if and when it may conflict with contracted party needs, and we have concerns that implementation of complex issues may take very long if there are multiple needs to revert to the GNSO for additional deliberations.
Given the late timing of this statement, I asked that it be reviewed by those in At-Large most deeply involved in the process.
Since we are supporting the recommended changes, but have concerns about the long-term implications, the statement take the form of formal advise to the Board that both of these concerns is that both issues be monitored to detect any negative implications.
The statement is appended below.
With this message, I am issuing a Consensus Call on this statement to end at 23:59 on Friday, 18 September 2015 at 23:59 UTC. In the absence of significant opposition, this statement will be deemed to be ratified.
Alan
=============
ALAC and At-Large representatives were very active in the Policy and Implementation Working Group and the ALAC supports the recommendations.
The ALAC nonetheless has two concerns that have been raised throughout the WG processes.
1. GNSO processes allow participation from all communities, and so in theory can equitably balance all issues. However, given that contracted parties can be greatly impacted by GNSO policy decision outcomes, they have strong motivation to actively participate in policy development working groups, and are often well funded to do so. Those representing users and the public interest such as At-Large or non-commercial users' constituencies are less able to participate on the same level. Accordingly, it is possible for WG participation to be unbalanced. Moreover, within the GNSO Council, the Contracted House Stakeholder Groups acting in unison can block a super-majority approval of any prospective recommendation. As a result, the ALAC has concerns that if an issue were to arise where the public interest and the needs of users is in conflict with the needs of contracted parties, the GNSO may not be able to arrive at an equitable solution.
2. Although the principle of referring all policy-like issues encountered during implementation back to the GNSO for resolution supports the concept of the GNSO being the sole gTLD policy body, the ALAC is concerned that for complex implementations such as the new gTLD process and future directory services solutions, the number of such referrals may unreasonably elongate the overall implementation process.
As stated above, the ALAC supports the recommended processes, but Advises the Board to carefully monitor both issues to ensure that user and public interests are appropriately considered and that the implementation of complex policy can be accomplished in reasonable time-frames.
_______________________________________________ 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...)
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
sandra hoferichter