WT A drafts of suggested ALAC public comment on ATRT draft recommendations

Draft 6

ALAC Statement on the ATRT Draft Proposed Recommendations

The At-Large Advisory Committee shares the ATRT concerns regarding the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its relationship with the ICANN Board and staff. We would extend this concern to the relationship between ICANN and all of its Advisory Committees. 

To this end, we propose an immediate engagement by the Board to establish standards for all ACs regarding:

  • Clearly defined channels through which to define and transmit advice from all ACs to the ICANN Board, as well as regarding appropriate Board response
  • Formal mechanisms for the ACs to alert ICANN to issues of substantial concern, that have the ability to seriously affect government and public confidence in ICANN
  • Methods which require the Board to either implement such AC advice, or refer policy back to the appropriate Supporting Organisations for reconsideration

We also ask that the ATRT support and encourage paragraph 9.1 e) of the AoC through expansion of the multi-stakeholder working group model.  Ad-hoc versions of this model have been recently used by the "JAS" working group on gTLD applicant support, and the "Rec6" WG studying the gTLD components related to what had been known as "Morality and Public Order". These groups have achieved surprising levels of consensus amongst diverse stakeholder groups, on some of ICANN's most contentious issues. They have indeed demonstrated the ability to "facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations and effective and timely policy development". While we encourage ICANN to facilitate the use of such cross-community groups through formal processes, it is imperative that ICANN treat the recommendations of such groups with appropriate weight and respond accordingly.

On issues that have implications within the area of scope or competence of any Advisory Committee, its advice should be actively sought and considered by relevant SOs or the Board. Indeed, it would be preferable for SOs to consult Advisory Committees early in policy development, to make feedback easier and more effiicient.

In addition, to make the Board more effective and transparent, ALAC recommends

  • designating or establishing a journal of record
  • allowing working groups to review, in advance, materials being presented on their behalf to the Board
  • adding the requirement for notice publication
  • soliciting comments for at least thirty days
  • provide response that accurately reflects the Board's decision-making processes

Implementing these steps will produce the record necessary to facilitate a full and timely review of any action.

Concerning public comments processes, ATRT should consider how to compare and rank the representativeness and relative weight of comments from individuals, groups and organizations of different sizes.  ALAC points out that its own comments and those from RALOs have gone through an extensive bottom up consultation process designed by ICANN itself, designed to maximize participation and community consensus.

Yrjo, 5 December - Draft 3

ALAC Statement on the ATRT Draft Proposed Recommendations

The ATRT has done a commendable job in assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board, putting on the record, among other things, that presently there is no agreement on what constitutes the advice of the GAC to the Board, and suggesting that there should be a more formal, documented process in asking for and giving that advice.

That there is need for improvement in this regard concerning the GAC, whose status and role are already enshrined in the Bylaws, raises an obvious question about the role of the other Advisory Committees.  If their roles in the ICANN structure is meant to be  seriously considered, their advisory processes too need to be more formal and documented like those suggested by the ATRT for the GAC.

 On issues that have implications within the area of competence of any Advisory Committee, its advice should be sought and considered  by relevant SO’s or the Board. An Advisory Committee should also be able to  put such  issues to the SO’s or Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies.

If the advice  from an Advisory Committee is not followed in the development of the policy, a response should be sent to the committee with an explanation, or an explanation should be provided in the policy document or in the minutes of its discussion.

ALAC recommends designating or establishing a journal of record and adding the requirement for notice publication, soliciting comments for at least thirty days,  and responding meaningfully to public comments, thus creating a record necessary to facilitate a full and timely review of any action.

Concerning public comments processes, ATRT should consider how to compare and rank the representativeness  and priority of comments from individuals, groups and organizations of different sizes.  ALAC points out that its own comments  and those from RALO’s, have gone through an extensive bottom up consultation process,  the primary purpose  of which is to maximize participation and the value of the comments.  ALSes  speaking together carry more weight than each of them speaking separately and encourages proactive evaluation rather than reactive comment.

Additionally, that ALAC notes that so far, the ATRT recommendations do not appear to address point e) of the para 9.1. of the AOC ("assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations and effective and timely policy development"). In light of what happened with Rec 6, improvements are clearly needed in this regard -- including how the results of such deliberations are taken into account. Since cross-constituency activity is very beneficial for our multi-stakeholder model, there should be  predictable mechanism for creating such cross-constituency activity, recognizing it, or reporting it. 

Yrjo and Work Team A, 3 December - Draft 2

ALAC Statement on the ATRT Draft Proposed Recommendations

The ATRT has done a commendable job in assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board, putting on the record, among other things, that there is no agreement on what constitutes the advice of the GAC to the Board, and suggesting that there should be a more formal, documented process in asking for and giving that advice.

That there should be need for improvement in this regard concerning the GAC, whose status and role are already enshrined in the Bylaws, raises an obvious question about the role of the other Advisory Committees.  If their advisory role in the ICANN structure is meant to be taken seriously, they too would benefit from improvements like those suggested by the ATRT for the GAC.  As a minimum, there should be provisions about the modalities of their advisory processes, including what happens if the advice is not taken.

The ALAC Improvements work team A will suggest Bylaw changes to ICANN’s Legal Department along these lines:

  • There needs to be explicit rules that indicate the priority of a RALO’s public comment versus one from Mr. or Ms. “X.”  Which is given more priority and taken more seriously?  There is not a clear understanding of what it means for the Board to receive a piece of advice from a RALO or ALS. 
  • The comments received during public comment periods need to be ranked in a certain way, rather than leaving their priority up to lobbying, which is what the case has so far been.

Additionally, that ALAC notes that so far, the ATRT recommendations do not appear to address point e) of the para 9.1. of the AOC ("assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations and effective and timely policy development"). In light of what happened with Rec 6, improvements are clearly needed in this regard -- including how the results of such deliberations are taken into account. Even though cross-constituency activity is very beneficial for our multi-stakeholder model, there is actually no set, predictable mechanism for creating such cross-constituency activity, recognizing it, or reporting it.

Yrjo, 15 November - Draft 1

 
        The ATRT has done a commendable job in assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board, putting on the record, among other things,  that there is no agreement on what constitutes the advice of the GAC to the Board, and suggesting that there should be a more formal, documented process in asking for and giving that advice.

That there should be need for improvement in this regard concerning the GAC, whose status and role are already enshrined in the Bylaws, raises an obvious question about the role of the other Advisory Committees.  If their advisory role in the ICANN structure is meant to be taken seriously, they too would benefit from improvements like those suggested by the ATRT for the GAC.  As a minimum, there should be provisions about the modalities of their advisory processes, including what happens if the advice is not taken.

The ALAC Improvements work team A is going to suggest Bylaw changes along these lines as far as the ALAC is concerned.

Yrjo notes:
  • Of course, the ATRT was specifically asked to discuss the role and effectiveness of the GAC only, not those of other AC's. However, their finding that there is no consensus even about what constitutes GAC advice, could be used to highlight the even less satisfactory situation in connection with other AC's.

  

WT A members' comments

 
Add comments here.

  • No labels

1 Comment

  1. Eric Brunner-Williams

    First draft:

    "The ALAC Improvements Work Team A recommends designating or establishing a journal of record and adding the requirement for notice publication, soliciting comments for at least thirty days, and responding meaningfully to public comments, thus creating a record necessary to facilitate a full and timely review of any action."