Just to be clear: - The board asked the *staff* to come up with a proposal. They have not asked for a WG to be formed to develop policy. - although the WG leaders asked management, staff and board to logistically support this group, there was no answer. As an example, ICANN provided no teleconference facilities. Participants pay out of their own pocket. I volunteered to host the mailing list on my personal mail server. The conclusion I draw is that the staff would actually prefer this WG not to exist. The main goal of this unofficial WG is to come up with a proposal that the staff cannot refuse, and will be somehow forced to present to the board at its December meeting. As for the "missing" At-Large position on the group, the information I have that it was someone from Africa was based on conversations I had with Antony. The person has been approached already and the WG is still waiting for a reply. I was in no way involved in the choice, BTW. Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 9/11/09 18:02:
First of all, I am *extremely* concerned about the compressed timeline.
/"Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday" /
This is NOT how to do major policy changes!! ICANN has been at tghe DAG for years, and it wants to turn a good suggestion at the Public Forum into complete policy in less than a month?
This (along with the absolutely ridiculous way the IRT was formed) indicates an extremely dangerous sense of panic within either ICANN's Board, staff or both.
Also -- and this may be most important of all -- it lets ICANN knows how many applications will be non-controversial and might have an ability to be fast tracked. The concept of application categories is clearly back, but ICANN needs to see what applications is dealing with in order to know whether a strategy of streams is worthwhile. I have not heard the word fast-track in this discussion. The one of the goals is to be able to quantify, not to select a few that would get a priority treatment. Those operating in stealth will eventually have to come out sometime, might as well be now. ICANN is a public and transparent body and need not care about business justifications for secrecy. I am against ICANN engaging in NDAs with applicants. This is a"pirate" group of some activists trying to push through a proposal, despite the reluctance of ICANN. Hence, it is not an official policy work. See this as lobbying, rather than policy development. This is why I said right from the beginning that I would be acting in my personal capacity. At the ALAC/GAC meeting I raised the issue of the 'morality and public order' clause. There seemed to be a broad consensus that the existing clause is highly problematic, however they are against taking it out because want *some* provision there and they have no alternative ideas. The goal of this WG is not to decide what constitutes morality and public order. More pragmatically, this early notification may allow those who submit controversial proposals that generate large opposition from the beginning to avoid sinking a million dollars in vain.
Patrick