AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
ページ履歴
| Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31.10.2013 | Policy & Implementation Working Group | Drafting | Alan Greenberg (NARALO) | TBC | TBC | TBC | TBC | TBC | TBC | TBC | n/a | TBC |
...
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
ALAC Comments on the issue of Policy and Implementation
History
ICANN is currently focused on the concepts of Policy and Implementation as it related to the gTLD world. It is a debate that was not really an issue until recently. The Bylaws are reasonably clear that the GNSO is responsible for developing gTLD Policy. The Bylaws are silent on what happens next.
...
The issue of intellectual property rights and the mechanisms that would be available to protect them forced the issue. A number of new and modified protection mechanisms were proposed and eventually adopted by ICANN. The method by which they were developed was unorthodox from the traditional ICANN perspective. Some groups claimed that parts of the new mechanisms were definitively policy and thus could not be put into effect without involving the GNSO. Others claimed they were purely implementation. As such, some believed that as implementation issues, it was purely a staff responsibility. This was counter to the AG development which, while deemed to be implementation, clearly had a major community involvement.
Resolution Methodology
The ALAC believes that once the issue became apparent, the ICANN Board should have taken the lead in chartering a cross community effort to delve into the issue and make recommendations on how to once more have a sense of order related to gTLD policy and implementation. That did not happen. As a result, the GNSO has chartered a Working Group (WG) to address the issue from a GNSO perspective. Although other parts of the community are invited to participate and are doing so, the ALAC believes that this was not how the problem should have been addressed.
Order from Chaos
Since gTLD Policy (with an upper case P) is defined in the Bylaws as the realm of the GNSO, it is simple enough to state that a Policy consists of whatever the PDP WG decides to put into its recommendations. These can be explicit and detailed, as they have been for several recent PDPs, attempting to ensure that staff had no latitude to be “creative” during the implementation. PDP Implementation teams have also been formed with the aim of ensuring that the INTENT of the PDP WG was carried out, even if the recommendations were less that clear.
...
