Page History

...

ALAC Questions and/or Topics

From Marita Moll : and Christopher Wilkinson:

Currently, various activities are being rolled-out under Strategic Objective #2: Improve the effectiveness of ICANN's multistakeholder model of governance. Under this banner, we are interested in how we can work together to make sure the end user in ICANN's MS model is a visible and well-understood part of the process. We would also like to hear more about how the "understanding the global public interest" project will intersect with the work on the MS evolutionAbout Board Operational Priority 1.1 - Understanding the global public interest, we note. that there was some pilot testing and we were asked for input on the idea. We are seeking some information about the current status of this. How would it be used in decision-making?  How can the community can assist further? There is no information on these points currently posted.

From Alan Greenberg:

We talk about a "holistic" review of ICANN with the potential outcome of significant changes in how we are organized and how we conduct business. There is certainly a lot of talk about this being an important step for ICANN. My sense is that EVERYONE wants to see significant change, but not in THEIR OWN area (NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard).

...

Recent board communication seems to imply that ICANN Compliance shouldn't be engaged in enforcing elements of a registry agreement that fall outside of ICANN's remit. While we understand that existing gTLDs are "grandfathered," it seems as though we are at an impasse if we are to have a mechanism for enforceable commitments to be made. For example, PICs were suggested as the means of making commitments to the community on behalf of PIR on a number of issues that might be considered outside ICANN's remit. What does the board Board believe to be the best means for applicants to a new round (or changes to existing PICs) to make commitments that have teeth. Another issue that came up, related to PICs, has to do with the PICDRP, in which you need to be the injured party to initiate a proceeding. Is there a practical way for the ALAC to be given standing to bring a PICDRP (or now RVCDRP?) on behalf of "individual users" generally, if we find that their interests are threatened?