Re: [ALAC] Analysis of WHOIS AoC RT Recommendations.
At 03/09/2012 08:11 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Dear Alan,
As per my vote on the ALAC statement, I supported the call for the Board to take effective and expedient action on the entire set of recommendations generated by the WHOIS Policy Review Team. I have no objections to the proposed policy analysis, which I know to be based on your very extensive experience with the GNSO, but I do suggest the following clarification tweaks for your consideration.
Unilateral Action By the Board In the same statement, the ALAC highlighted several recommendations that it believed the Board should/can take action on unilaterally without resorting to the GNSO policy processes (formal or otherwise). To ensure that there is no misunderstanding with the analysis that you are proposing, I suggest a third column with the header "Unilateral Board Action Required" so that this point is reiterated and not forgotten given that it is a crucial point. The point that Carlton makes about the role of the board in policy-making and decision-making is not something that can/should be addressed in depth at the level of policy analysis here. Nevertheless, the contention is important and the presence of the suggested third column serves as a prelude to a future intervention that the ALAC will presumably make over that issue (should it wish to do so and after extensive internal debate, of course).
Perhaps I am missing some issue, but how I don't understand how a "No" in the present second column (well, 2nd other than the sequence numbers) be different from a "Yes" in the next column. If the Board need not go to the group to which is has delegated gTLD policy formulation, who else is there but the Board to act? BTW, I used the term "unilateral" to some extent to wave a red flag in the face of the Board reminding them that they do have they do have authority to manage ICANN. That is technically correct. However, in the name of openness and the multi-stakeholder model, the Board will virtually always go out for public comment prior to taking any substantive action of the sort we are talking about here. And if that comment was overwhelmingly negative, they would be hard-pressed to proceed. So I would not recommend that we use the term again.
Types of Policy Action (under "GNSO Policy Required?") Thank you for providing the clarification between a formal PDP and other types of GNSO policy development. For clarity, because the PDP has a specific contextual meaning, I suggest that you start each elaboration with either a "YES (PDP)" or "YES - Non-PDP" or "NO" and then elaborate. Currently, for some of your elaboration, the "Yes" or "No" is at the bottom. In cases where the action is contextual, rather than saying "perhaps", which flusters some people and fuel ambiguity, do go for the more definitive "YES if ..." or "NO if ...."
As I pointed out, my description of what requires a PDP and what does not is not universally held. As a result of answering your previous question, my inclination is to go in the opposite direction to the one you suggest, and not make a very strong point of the belief that no PDP is needed. I would not want our overall evaluation to be passed over because of the form that the policy work will take (something that ultimately the Board has virtually no control over). Alan
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all 16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy development. That ALAC statement can be found at <http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice.
Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy development, and which might required GNSO policy development.
I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations might require policy development. I have since revised this and present it to you here.
In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP.
The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the recommendations in detail can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf.
It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board Workshop scheduled for September 12-13.
I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@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+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Dear Alan: A few comments to clarify my position. 1) Politics is about contending who gets what, how much and when. This is exactly the GNSO process: raw politics by other means. Process is all important here. That's what is of interest to me; find the points of intersection (between factions), conjecture (among factions) and opportunity (for your point of view) to get your "what" satisfied. The process that undergirds the PDP offers opportunities to cleave interests, triangulate and form alliances more favourable to the outcomes you seek. And, you can message to your heart's content. 2) If we agree that running a company enjoins basic principles of action that need not be crowd-sourced, then in this context, your ideas about what the Board can do without reverting to the crowd - even a tailor-made one like the GNSO - for thumbs up coincides nicely with mine. See your list. I believe Rinalia agrees with you as well, save that she suggests these are explicitly enumerated. No 'on-the-one-hand-but-on-the other-hand' confusion, in other words. I tend to agree with her, especially as we're not taking a position that is ahistorical. The truth is there is a significant set of the interests located in the GNSO that believes that all ICANN policy pertaining gTLDs shall be provenanced - must originate, uni-directional flow; I want to convey that specific sense in meaning - from the GNSO. Lest we forget, the GNSO does not now house all the interests pertaining gTLDs. Finally, if that idea is embraced, one could reasonably be left to contemplate this: Get on the ICANN Board because it is a gravy train; live it up, do nothing until you're told what to do. That way nobody can hold you accountable! Blame the ne'er-do-wells in that tailor-made crowd called the GNSO for the state of things, that's what you need to do! - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
At 03/09/2012 08:11 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Dear Alan,
As per my vote on the ALAC statement, I supported the call for the Board to take effective and expedient action on the entire set of recommendations generated by the WHOIS Policy Review Team. I have no objections to the proposed policy analysis, which I know to be based on your very extensive experience with the GNSO, but I do suggest the following clarification tweaks for your consideration.
Unilateral Action By the Board In the same statement, the ALAC highlighted several recommendations that it believed the Board should/can take action on unilaterally without resorting to the GNSO policy processes (formal or otherwise). To ensure that there is no misunderstanding with the analysis that you are proposing, I suggest a third column with the header "Unilateral Board Action Required" so that this point is reiterated and not forgotten given that it is a crucial point. The point that Carlton makes about the role of the board in policy-making and decision-making is not something that can/should be addressed in depth at the level of policy analysis here. Nevertheless, the contention is important and the presence of the suggested third column serves as a prelude to a future intervention that the ALAC will presumably make over that issue (should it wish to do so and after extensive internal debate, of course).
Perhaps I am missing some issue, but how I don't understand how a "No" in the present second column (well, 2nd other than the sequence numbers) be different from a "Yes" in the next column. If the Board need not go to the group to which is has delegated gTLD policy formulation, who else is there but the Board to act?
BTW, I used the term "unilateral" to some extent to wave a red flag in the face of the Board reminding them that they do have they do have authority to manage ICANN. That is technically correct. However, in the name of openness and the multi-stakeholder model, the Board will virtually always go out for public comment prior to taking any substantive action of the sort we are talking about here. And if that comment was overwhelmingly negative, they would be hard-pressed to proceed. So I would not recommend that we use the term again.
Types of Policy Action (under "GNSO Policy Required?") Thank you for providing the clarification between a formal PDP and other types of GNSO policy development. For clarity, because the PDP has a specific contextual meaning, I suggest that you start each elaboration with either a "YES (PDP)" or "YES - Non-PDP" or "NO" and then elaborate. Currently, for some of your elaboration, the "Yes" or "No" is at the bottom. In cases where the action is contextual, rather than saying "perhaps", which flusters some people and fuel ambiguity, do go for the more definitive "YES if ..." or "NO if ...."
As I pointed out, my description of what requires a PDP and what does not is not universally held. As a result of answering your previous question, my inclination is to go in the opposite direction to the one you suggest, and not make a very strong point of the belief that no PDP is needed. I would not want our overall evaluation to be passed over because of the form that the policy work will take (something that ultimately the Board has virtually no control over).
Alan
Best regards,
Rinalia
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: You will recall that at its last meeting, the ALAC unanimously approved a statement to the Board reiterating its position that all 16 recommendations be implemented, and stressed that several were very important and clearly did not require any prior GNSO policy development. That ALAC statement can be found at <http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice> http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-WHOIS-Advice.
Based on further discussions, and in light of a controversy that has arisen in the GNSO, it was suggested that the ALAC explicitly identify which recommendations do not require any prior policy development, and which might required GNSO policy development.
I had already done a brief review looking at which recommendations might require policy development. I have since revised this and present it to you here.
In summary, of the 16 recommendations, 12 do not require GNSO policy development, 3 *might* require policy development, but that would depend on work carried out over the coming months and years, and 1 does require policy development by the GNSO along with the rest of the community, but in my opinion, does not require a formal PDP.
The detailed analysis is attached. The report with the recommendations in detail can be found at < http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf .
It is essential that this analysis reach the Board before the Board Workshop scheduled for September 12-13.
I am not sure if Olivier wants to hold a formal vote on this, or for the ALAC to just reach consensus, but regardless, the first step if for anyone who does not agree with this analysis to speak up.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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...)
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...)
Hi all, Apologies for having been generally away from ICANN issues for the last week or so. I'm now catching up on my mail backlog. I'm in broad agreement with Carlton and Rinalia in their assessments and thank both them and Alan for helping to form this.
From a different perspective I am annoyed -- bordering on taking offence -- that At-Large expression of the public interest is expected to consider (and maybe even partially defer to!) the internal workings of ICANN's GNSO when giving its advice to the ICANN Board. We are bound neither in scope nor reporting process by the limitations of the GNSO, and we ought not to be bound by its constraints or internal politics.
*The establishment and enforcement of a robust and accurate WHOIS mechanism, as a tool of basic registrant and industry accountability, is an ICANN public interest priority.* That is our core message. The rest is detail. By all means we have a duty to welcome (and indeed assert our) participation in community-wide low-level policy development. However, IMO it is not our task to slice and dice what solutions can be implemented by staff and which get punted back to ICANN's industry-captured formal policy making process. We must remind ourselves that this same "community" has tolerated (and on the balance can be said to defend) the status quo of lax regulations that are themselves ineptly enforced. This is the inertia against which we must act. We have a duty to tell the ICANN Board and community (and by that I mean a community that is not just the industry and its partners in opaqueness): a) That this issue is important, indeed critical b) That we are willing to work with the internal community in good-faith attempts to address the minutiae required to address deficiencies in ICANN's public service I believe that what Alan has presented, and that which Carlton and Rinalia have comment upon, helps address the low level details of the problems. But let us also not lose sight of the need to give a clear and simple high-level message to the Board (and our public) that is unbound by the limitations of such work. Being an Advisory Committee and not a Supporting Organization gives us a different role in ICANN, and a slightly different path. We are already saddled with the deficiencies of the differences (ie, our advice is not binding) so we might as well take capitalize on the advantages (less constrained processes and a direct channel to the Baord). - Evan
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch