Dear Avri, thanks for continuing the dialogue online. Often with matters of communication, timing is everything. And indeed, we were running out of time during the CPWG call. The ALAC's ratification processes require several days for the ALAC to study the statement, perhaps discuss it with each other and for the ALAC to conduct a ratification vote. On this occasion, if the ALAC was to submit the Statement before the end of the comment period on 5 November 2024, it would have needed to follow the timeline that is listed on the CPWG Agenda policy table: Draft Statement: 23 Oct 2024 Final Statement: 30 Oct 2024 ALAC Vote: 31 Oct 2024 to 04 Nov 2024 We are clearly running out of time on this, if we want to give enough people the ability to both read the Statement and also comment on it. Traditionally, the ALAC has had two ways to resolve "running out of time": 1. Make a formal request (through At-Large support staff) for additional time to submit its input to the consultation, usually 7-14 extra days. On occasions, ICANN has replied by extending the comment period for everyone. On some occasions, ICANN has replied by allowing the ALAC's comments to be received a few days late as it takes ICANN several days to process the comments received - thus the ALAC's comments could arrive within the ICANN processing window. 2. In the case where the ICANN consultation process was under tight deadlines and where it was not possible for the consultation deadline to be extended, the ALAC was still able to submit its comments. One of the ALAC's bylaw-mandated functions is to be able to comment on any ICANN related topic at any time. It is not constrained by comment periods. So the ALAC could submit the comment late. The decision for asking for an extension rests in the hands of the ALAC Chair. An extension would indeed provide more days to search for consensus on the Statement draft currently published on https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a... (I invite everyone to look at it again in light of the comments made by Avri) On the relevance of the "topic" and the ALAC line of comment, the concerns expressed in the current draft are not new. The ALAC has expressed such concerns on several occasions: - Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations (16 Sept 2015) - https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/9699 - expresses concerns about the imbalance of stakeholder control in implementation. - GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Publishes Initial Recommendations Report (17 March 2015) - https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/6511 - expressed concerns about matters of public interest needing to include all stakeholders - ALAC Statement on the Policy & Implementation Working Group (21 Nov 2013) - https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/7011 - expressing its baseline concerns in matters of Policy vs. Implementation in the early days of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group. - And of course there is also the ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on the Subsequent Procedures PDP Recommendations (16 April 2021) - https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/13823 - where the ALAC Advises the ICANN Board to proceed with contractual updates in relation to DNS Abuse and other matters, as a result of community driven recommendations. DNS Abuse is, as you know, a significant topic of concern for At-Large and the ALAC has been struggling with both Contracted Parties and the ICANN Board for a long time before the topic became addressed seriously. Outside official "Statements", the ALAC is on record for expressing concerns about behind the scenes negotiations during bilateral contractual negotiations with Registrars and Registries that take place behind closed doors. It has asked, at least on one occasion, whether it was possible for it to have observers participate at bilateral contractual negotiations should these negotiations be allowed to introduce significant changes to the policy recommendations that were drawn by the Community in the Policy Development Process. This was refused since "Contractual negotiations have to be kept confidential". Given this, plus the comments added by Avri in her email below and on the document, can we make amendments and find consensus to have a text that reflects the ALAC ongoing concern that bottom-up Policy Development should not be short-circuited by bilateral contractual negotiations taking place behind closed doors? Kindest regards, Olivier On 30/10/2024 23:16, avri--- via CPWG wrote:
Hi.
I am sorry I had to cut off discussion in the meeting today. As a co-chair, I felt that we were not going to achieve consensus for making a comment in that meeting, and we had a full agenda.
I do not, however, want to cut off discussion. ALAC can communicate its position by other means if we miss the comment deadline. As you say, this is a core subject in terms of our multistakeholder model, so if AL can reach consensus on the subject, it should communicate that to the board. I also agree that there is good reason in sending this in as a personal statement, perhaps with co-signers and endorsers after the fact.
<hat off>
On the personal opinion side of the discussion, I think that this issue, an issue that has been fiercely argued from time to time for 20 years, in one form or another, is based on a misunderstanding of the ICANN model and its scope. The following is a comment I just recently added to Michael's draft, that I decided to pass on to the list after having finished it.
/I think the basic problem is that ICANN is not fully multistakeholder with regard to its contracting. By having carved off a section of the contracts as subject to consensus policy, the famous picket fence, it has excluded other parts of contracting from multistakeholder governance. This is not an issue we seem to recognize in the community. We keep insisting that the multistakeholder methods of governance should apply to all contracts in all their clauses, but the corporation insists that this is not the case, i.e. those aspects are not part of the ICANN multistakeholder bargain with the community./
/There is of course, a slim tether to the multistakeholder community, in the fact that the Board selected by the multistakeholder community often, sometimes at least, has the last word on contracting. If the community cannot content itself with the partial multistakeholder model, then we have a different issue./
/(i will pop this into an email to the CPWG list)/
<hat on>
From a co-chair perspective, I will go with whatever the CPWG can agree to, either in time for the deadline or sometime after.
thanks
avri
On 2024-10-30 14:29, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:
Hello All,
In advance of our CPWG call later today, I wanted to share a draft of the proposed ALAC statement, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sk4dwR5_EGGj8vTwvtaxnfimgCQSkCFkxo0V142a...
My apologies for not getting this out sooner, but I have been juggling several day job conflicts. However, the statement is only two pages, so it is rather concise and an easy read. Taking the feedback of Avri on the doom and gloom of “this represents a systemic threat to the ICANN multistakeholder model” I have toned that wording down to “undermines the multistakeholder” which I think is a reasonable compromise.
I look forward to answering any questions people may have on today’s call.
Best regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list --cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tocpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.