AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
Submitted via the ICANN72 Plenary Topics form on Friday 6 August 2021
...
1. Marita Moll -
...
Moving Forward with the Global Public Interest Framework
Brief Description (max 250 words) * | |
The ICANN FY22 operating plans (community engagement and services) include the following activity: "Community to decide whether the proposed public interest framework can be used to demonstrate how specific recommendations, advice and public comments are in the global public interest" |
. * At ICANN, the global public interest is tied to its mission and central to primary governance documents. The challenge has been in operationalizing this commitment. In 2019, the Board and the community began a discussion on developing a tool designed to formally incorporate the public interest into Board decision making. In the interests of addressing the activity proposed in the plan, this session will provide more information and seek feedback about the public interest framework and how it is evolving It would also consider how such a tool should be used by the community in their activities/initiatives to further ICANN's mission. What has changed since the last public update on this in ICANN66? *https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-op-financial-fy22-26-opplan-fy22-2020-en.pdf |
. p.280 Moderator: Marita Moll (ALAC) Suggested speakers: Avri Doria -- Board shepherd for an update on the current status of the framework: what is it; how does it work; how can communities participate Participants from At Large and other constituencies: will this framework assist your community in its deliberations; do you see any drawbacks? | |
Rationale/Desired Outcomes* | An valuable opportunity for a public community discussion on the public interest framework; a discussion that would inform the Board as per the activity proposed in the FY22 operational plans |
Session Format * | Public interest framework to be introduced and explained by Board shepherd Avri Doria. Subsequent discussion, comments and suggestions from representatives of ICANN constituencies. |
Session Leaders/Facilitators* | Marita Moll (ALAC) Avri Doria At-Large |
Community Interest * | high level of interest anticipated as this relates to the Board decision making processes and thus affects everyone. Constituencies will want to be well informed and the Board is asking for feedback |
2. Sébastien Bachollet - ICANN Accountability and Transparency and the ICANN Reviews
...
4. Jonathan Zuck - Closed Generics
Unfinished business: Closed Generics
What will happen with Closed Generics in subsequent rounds, where the 2012 Guidebook allowed for them, but the GAC advised against them, and there is currently no policy* in place?
While nearly all of the 300+ Outputs in the Final Report were approved by the GNSO Council, there are three exceptions that were NOT approved (i.e., Topic 23 in its entirety and recommendations 35.2 and 35.4 from Topic 35).
- The single Output under Topic 23: Closed Generics, the Working Group was unable to reach Consensus in recommending an alternate course of action.
- Closed Generics designation as “No Agreement” properly represents the outcome of the WG discussion. Unfortunately, the WG failed to develop a policy going forward for Closed Generics. There was no agreement within the WG on what the default for closed generic applications would be if we failed to recommend a policy. The 2012 AGB allowed for closed generics, but the 2012 implementation did not.
- The 2012 AGB allowed for closed generics. Following the application period, the GAC issued advice that stated closed generics only be allowed to proceed if they were in the public interest. Applicants changed their designations from “closed” to “open” in order to move their applications through the process rather than get tied up in debates over how to define or prove public interest.
The Board Public Comment period focused on all Outputs approved by the GNSO Council, rather than the Outputs that were not approved. Following the Public Comment proceeding and operational assessment, the ICANN Board is expected to take action on the approved policy recommendations.
This begs the question, how will the closed generics issue be resolved? Should a focused PDP tackle the issue? Is the ODP going to consider how to handle closed generics? Is the ICANN Board finding some middle ground?
