Click here for the final ALAC Statement (PDF format) transmitted to the Board on 09 May 2011.
Proposed open letter to the ICANN Board
Revised by Alan Greenberg and Evan Leibovitch, 02 May 2011
(Previous version can be viewed at revision 6 of this document - https://community.icann.org/x/RorT)
When the new Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) was approved in 2009, the GNSO Council committed to a process which would lead to further RAA amendments, looking at both the subjects to be included and the process by which it could happen. The ALAC and At-Large was pleased to participate in this process.
It now appears that the GNSO Council is deadlocked on how to handle the renegotiation of the RAA. Moreover the Council has considered two motions addressing future RAA work. The first would have allowed non-contracted parties to act as observers in the RAA amendment discussions (as suggested by the non-contracted party participants in the RAA Working Group). It was rejected. The second would have accepted no observers but required regular reports of the negotiations and required a strict but liberal time schedule. That motion too was rejected.
This has the potential to both delay the RAA amendment process and to keep the RAA negotiation process as opaque as it ever was. To date, ICANN staff has been silent as to how it believes that RAA revision process should be handled.
The ALAC wishes to make its concern formally known that not only is the ICANN community being prevented from proper participatory process in creating Registrar policy, but that the Transparency and Accountability required by ICANN By-laws and the AoC is effectively being abrogated.
Indeed, the ALAC reminds the Board that while the RAA has the form of a contract between the registrars and ICANN, this should not mean that only the directly contracted parties should be part of the discussion: ICANN uses contracts merely as a tool to formalize what should be the result of a larger participatory process; the contract is the tool, not the framework.
This issue is fundamental to ICANN's function, perception and credibility as a multi-stakeholder, bottom-up institution.
We maintain that "ICANN" has a multi-stakeholder model, as described in its organizational diagram and at no moment is "ICANN" restricted to ICANN Staff.
We therefore request that the Board examine this procedural issue and for it to act as the steward of the process and the trustee of the multi-stakeholder principle upon which ICANN is based.
7 Comments
Eric Brunner-Williams
Olivier,
There are some substantive issues ALAC could address as well.
Thank you for your time.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Comment from Kieren Mc Carthy, copied from the NARALO-Discuss list:
From: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>
Date: April 23, 2011 7:34:31 AM PDT
To: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <
na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 26
Hello all,
My two cents worth on the RAA statement.
It seems a little one-sided and demanding.
I don't think it does the ALAC any good to 'pick sides' in another SO's
dispute.
As such, It would have far greater impact if you acknowledged the statement
put out by the Contracted House, and then explained why, in the ALAC's view,
this was not sufficient to pull away from allowing other stakeholders to
view the process.
You could even try to act as peacemaker and suggest to the Board that both
sides find a mutually agreeable observer - who could be from anywhere in the
community (ALAC?).
The last thing I'd note is that the statement doesn't really explain why
individual Internet users are impacted by this. The average Internet Joe
doesn't care about the multistakeholder model - but he does care about the
rules surrounding domain names.
I think the statement would be much stronger if it was clearer why the ALAC
was sticking its oar in- because this has an impact far beyond the GNSO
Council.
Hope this is helpful,
Kieren
from mobile device
------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
Alan Greenberg
I fully support the intent of this statement. A review of some of the salient parts of this complex issue may be worthwhile:
Alan Greenberg
At the last ALAC meeting, I was asked to revise this statement, with the help of Evan. The new version has now been posted replacing the original one at the top of this page. There is a link to the old version as well.
Carlton Samuels
Putting both Kieren and Eric's perspectives in play, would it be useful to generalize and add a line that includes Eric's observation as another rivet to the public interest angle Kieren is suggesting this intervention highlight?
Anonymous
Hello all,
So I think this is a better and stronger statement.
One further suggestion: you could add weight to the overall statement by pointing out that the RAA directly impacts every single domain name owner. And stress that ALAC is acknowledged within ICANN as the voice for the millions of Internet users, especially domain name holders.
To my mind at least that would give the whole statement greater impact.
Kieren
Btw I wasn't able to register for an account on this wiki.
Alan Greenberg
Thanks for the comments. Although I agree with the content of both Kieren's last suggestion and Eric's comments, I don't think that they should be included.
For Eric's comments, although all true, I am not sure they directly relate to the issue at hand. If we were arguing for why *we* should be a fully party to the discussions, it would be relevant, but unfortunately, that does not seem to even be on the table at the moment. These are, however, subjects that should be raised once the actual contract changes start to be discussed.
Regarding Keieren's addition that ALAC is the voice of users and thus registrants, it is true and the line we normally use. But in this case, I think that our refernce to the AoC and transparency and accountability is a far stronger issue and I am not sure that we should dilute it.