Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
Hello all, just a kind reminder, a few hours away from the At-Large Comments closing. I have heard in corridors that some people were concerned about the lack of overall review of the GNSO's structure and most of the recommendations focussed on GNSO Working Groups and small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO's bicameral structure. Yet, I have not seen any actual written confirmation of this concern here. Could you please all take a short moment to write your concerns, if any, that should be part of an overall comment that falls outside the (narrow) scope of the actual recommendations made by Westlake Consultants? Kindest regards, Olivier On 16/07/2015 08:00, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hello all,
of particular interest, is identifying what is *missing* from the Review. Suggestions welcome. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/07/2015 03:00, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear All,
Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw> in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process.
The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public Comment, can be found on the wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw.
Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by* 22 July 2015 23:59 UTC*.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>
Dear Olivier: Thankyou. Noted, but only just now. There are a major threshold issues. Particularly for those of us who are already spending a large part of the available time on other ICANN issues. - I do not quite understand where the document that we are invited to comment on is coming from. Is that a staff draft or and ALAC draft or something else? - I dipped into the Westlake report, but my printer managed pages 137 to 161 before stopping, not more, so I am really not the much wiser. (These monster documents really play to the criticism that the staff is trying to bury the issues in unmanageable detail.) More generally, I consider that much of the CWG and CCWG attack on the ICANN Board's accountability can be traced back to self-interested and indefensible GNSO positions which the Board has endorsed uncritically on the basis of 'bottom up' policy developoment. Several aspects of the new gTLD program which have proved to be unsustainable and indefensible can be traced back to positions espoused by the Registry and Registrar community. Regarding the structure of GNSO, I can only say that the NCUC etc. members, although claiming Civil Society affiliation have serially failed to identify and support the public interest or to rein in the commercial objectives of the Registries and Registrars. Nom-com and other liaisons with GNSO appear not to have the necessary leverage. ICANN's primary responsibility is the regulation of the conditions of fair competition in the DNS market. It has become clear that the community will not get anything like that from GNSO as presently structured. I trust that this is clear and useful Regards CW PS: Now, how to distill my concerns into 'comments' into the document) Well, I regret that simply in terms of understanding how to manage the word-processing, I am convinced that I would waste a lot of time, failing. (Why do we use these complicated Google-esque re-drafting methods? They disenfranchise those who have never succeeded in using them.) On 22 Jul 2015, at 18:50, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello all,
just a kind reminder, a few hours away from the At-Large Comments closing. I have heard in corridors that some people were concerned about the lack of overall review of the GNSO's structure and most of the recommendations focussed on GNSO Working Groups and small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO's bicameral structure. Yet, I have not seen any actual written confirmation of this concern here. Could you please all take a short moment to write your concerns, if any, that should be part of an overall comment that falls outside the (narrow) scope of the actual recommendations made by Westlake Consultants? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/07/2015 08:00, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hello all,
of particular interest, is identifying what is *missing* from the Review. Suggestions welcome. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/07/2015 03:00, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear All,
Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process.
The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public Comment, can be found on the wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw.
Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 22 July 2015 23:59 UTC.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hello Christopher and All, The Statement on this public comment is drafted by Olivier Crepin Leblond. Once it is final, it will be submitted to the public comment as a Statement from the ALAC. The ALAC will also conduct a ratification vote for it. If you have any comment on this draft Statement, kindly post it in its wiki workspace here for higher visibility and easier reference: https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw. If you are unable to post in the wiki, kindly contact me. You may find the draft Statement under FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED¹ in the aforementioned wiki workspace. Thank you, Ariel From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 3:00 PM To: Olivier Crepin Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Cc: "alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Dear Olivier: Thankyou. Noted, but only just now. There are a major threshold issues. Particularly for those of us who are already spending a large part of the available time on other ICANN issues. - I do not quite understand where the document that we are invited to comment on is coming from. Is that a staff draft or and ALAC draft or something else? - I dipped into the Westlake report, but my printer managed pages 137 to 161 before stopping, not more, so I am really not the much wiser. (These monster documents really play to the criticism that the staff is trying to bury the issues in unmanageable detail.) More generally, I consider that much of the CWG and CCWG attack on the ICANN Board's accountability can be traced back to self-interested and indefensible GNSO positions which the Board has endorsed uncritically on the basis of 'bottom up' policy developoment. Several aspects of the new gTLD program which have proved to be unsustainable and indefensible can be traced back to positions espoused by the Registry and Registrar community. Regarding the structure of GNSO, I can only say that the NCUC etc. members, although claiming Civil Society affiliation have serially failed to identify and support the public interest or to rein in the commercial objectives of the Registries and Registrars. Nom-com and other liaisons with GNSO appear not to have the necessary leverage. ICANN's primary responsibility is the regulation of the conditions of fair competition in the DNS market. It has become clear that the community will not get anything like that from GNSO as presently structured. I trust that this is clear and useful Regards CW PS: Now, how to distill my concerns into 'comments' into the document) Well, I regret that simply in terms of understanding how to manage the word-processing, I am convinced that I would waste a lot of time, failing. (Why do we use these complicated Google-esque re-drafting methods? They disenfranchise those who have never succeeded in using them.) On 22 Jul 2015, at 18:50, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello all,
just a kind reminder, a few hours away from the At-Large Comments closing. I have heard in corridors that some people were concerned about the lack of overall review of the GNSO's structure and most of the recommendations focussed on GNSO Working Groups and small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO's bicameral structure. Yet, I have not seen any actual written confirmation of this concern here. Could you please all take a short moment to write your concerns, if any, that should be part of an overall comment that falls outside the (narrow) scope of the actual recommendations made by Westlake Consultants? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/07/2015 08:00, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hello all,
of particular interest, is identifying what is *missing* from the Review. Suggestions welcome. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/07/2015 03:00, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear All,
Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw> in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process.
The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public Comment, can be found on the wiki workspace here: <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw> https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw.
Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 22 July 2015 23:59 UTC.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff@atlarge.icann.org Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge <http://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Olivier I have an observation based on the observation in the Westlake materials. The case is made that the GNSO is largely North American or European and male. Quite a bit of the follow on has been discussing how to increase participation from a broader section of the global community and so on, and whether GNSO has really engaged with that as a core agenda. All very worthy and important. What is not mentioned or if it is has, is buried in the vast amount of guff; is that the entire gtld process in recent years has been dominated by the views, interests and expectations of that "constituency". What would I think be a useful response for an At Large body to make is to ask (remind) how many gtld registries and tld's are domiciled both legally and operationally in each of the ICANN regions both before and after the recent expansion of gtld space under the GNSO's auspices. The underlying question to ask is whether the Westlake report may reveal a hidden pattern that ICANN GNSO is self-reinforcing the domain name business geo politically and whether that is underpinning the Westlake observation of the concentration of the GNSO constituency as North American and European. If so that would have deep consequences for ICANN to work towards a more balanced global distribution if gtld's are to be perceived as a global resource. best Christian Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hello all,
just a kind reminder, a few hours away from the At-Large Comments closing. I have heard in corridors that some people were concerned about the lack of overall review of the GNSO's structure and most of the recommendations focussed on GNSO Working Groups and small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO's bicameral structure. Yet, I have not seen any actual written confirmation of this concern here. Could you please all take a short moment to write your concerns, if any, that should be part of an overall comment that falls outside the (narrow) scope of the actual recommendations made by Westlake Consultants? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/07/2015 08:00, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hello all,
of particular interest, is identifying what is *missing* from the Review. Suggestions welcome. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 16/07/2015 03:00, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear All,
Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw> in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process.
The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public Comment, can be found on the wiki workspace here: <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw>https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw.
Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by* 22 July 2015 23:59 UTC*.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>staff@atlarge.icann.org Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge>www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, ------------------------- @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 cdel@firsthand.net -------------------------
Hi
On Jul 23, 2015, at 12:02 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net> wrote:
The case is made that the GNSO is largely North American or European and male.
This applies only to the business parts of the GNSO, not civil society. The authors of the report systematically demonstrated an inability to even bother to look at the web pages or mail list archives of NCSG, NCUC, and NPOC before making generalizations about them, relying instead on bits of hearsay from not quite disinterested actors who’ve been “on the other side” on various issues. NCUC has 428 members from 101 countries, including 108 noncommercial organizations and 320 individuals http://www.ncuc.org/about/members/ <http://www.ncuc.org/about/members/> We’ve not done a demographic breakdown lately but believe about half are from the global South. NPOC lists about 60 organizational members, many from the global South http://www.npoc.org/?p=members2015june <http://www.npoc.org/?p=members2015june>. And there are some people who've joined the SG but neither constituency, I don’t have their numbers handy. In any event, the numbers indicate that the CS part of the GNSO is not largely North American or European and male. Best Bill ********************************************************* William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake@uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake@gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q *********************************************************
If I remember correctly (and I really should, as I was the Chair of the GNSO Review WG as well as the Chair of the Structural Improvements Committee) one of the clauses of the deal was that the structure of the GNSO (i.e. the creation of the Stakeholder Groups) was going to be reviewed at the next iteration. R. Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Inviato: mercoledì 22 luglio 2015 18:51 A: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization Hello all, just a kind reminder, a few hours away from the At-Large Comments closing. I have heard in corridors that some people were concerned about the lack of overall review of the GNSO's structure and most of the recommendations focussed on GNSO Working Groups and small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO's bicameral structure. Yet, I have not seen any actual written confirmation of this concern here. Could you please all take a short moment to write your concerns, if any, that should be part of an overall comment that falls outside the (narrow) scope of the actual recommendations made by Westlake Consultants? Kindest regards, Olivier On 16/07/2015 08:00, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Hello all, of particular interest, is identifying what is *missing* from the Review. Suggestions welcome. Kindest regards, Olivier On 16/07/2015 03:00, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: Dear All, Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization <https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw> in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process. The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public Comment, can be found on the wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 22 July 2015 23:59 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>
Hello everyone, thank you very much for your comments which have been very helpful. I suggest appending the following text to the reply to Recommendation #23 · The ICANN core value cited as the reason the Report provides for more constituencies is about broad participation in policy making. The formation of more constituencies is not the only way to expand participation, and it ignores the existence and role of the ALAC. ALAC, with its representatives from five regions, from a wide range of language groups and myriad internet user groups is far better placed to provide that broad participation. A better and more achievable way to achieve the broad participation sought is to support and encourage ALAC members to engage in policy processes. Also adding the following main text in the General Comments Section: --- cut here --- Whilst the ALAC support almost all of the recommendations made in the Westlake Report, the ALAC is concerned that the vast majority of the recommendations focus on GNSO Working Groups and suggest making small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO Council's bicameral structure. Examples of areas for review are numerous and not limited to: · The current structure of the GNSO Council provides the ability for a more united vote in the Contracted Party House whilst fragmenting the Non-Contracted Party house to the point of imbalance. The unprecedented growth of Contracted Parties caused by the new gTLD Program has not been addressed. What might have been a homogeneous Constituency might now be more heterogeneous and the potential consequences of this change have not been studied. For example, City TLDs are an entirely new breed of Registry; so are Brand TLDs. How does this affect the current status quo? How would the people using City TLDs have their voice heard · Other commenters in the At-Large Community have noted that the proposals for more geographically balanced representation appeared to be focused on finding new participants from outside the GNSO’s usual territory. A question to ask is how many gTLD registries and gTLDs are domiciled both legally and operationally in each of the ICANN regions both before and after the recent expansion of gTLD space under the GNSO's auspices. The Westlake Review misses on the opportunity to potentially reveal a hidden pattern that the ICANN GNSO is self-reinforcing the domain name business geopolitically and whether that is underpinning the Westlake observation of the concentration of the GNSO’s constituencies as North American and European. · GNSO Working Groups are open for all participants including non-GNSO Constituency members – but the GNSO Council, thanks to its very structure, has the ability to affect a working group’s results. Voting is one of the ways to support or halt recommendations from a bottom-up PDP. The ALAC believes that the complex issues of GNSO structure and processes need to be studied now. The ALAC reminds the Reviewers of the At-Large Future Challenges Working Group R3 White Paper (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-01oct12-en.htm ) drafted in 2012 and containing proposals that should be explored. Reinforcing ALAC’s view is its recollection of several of its members that during the first GNSO Review, it was understood that Constituencies and the creation of “Stakeholder Groups” were going to be reviewed at the next iteration. Tragically, this is missing from the current report. --- cut here --- As we only have 24 hours until the closing of the comment period, please let me know ASAP if this is satisfactory. Kindest regards, Olivier
participants (6)
-
Ariel Liang -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
William Drake