Page History
| Note | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
The GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast their likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well-represented in the policy-making process. |
| Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): | CG - Accept with modification: To the extent it is possible to predict in advance what stakeholder groups may be impacted by future policy development efforts, that would be very helpful. It is probably more likely though to be able to do that after specific policy issues are identified. Certainly, this seems like a very good recommendation to be implemented in Issue Reports. |
|---|---|
| Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): |
Rationale: MK: Reject or accept with modification. The Council is the manager of the policy development process, not a research institute. If this data is deemed helpful, the recommendation could be modified to state that such information is expected to be provided by ICANN/GDD on a regular basis, noting that there are potential budget implications? |
| Basis for Assessment: | |
| Work in Progress: | |
| Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress: | |
| Milestones: | |
| Responsibility: |
Public Comments Received
Comment # | Submitted By | Affiliation | Comment |
Recommendation 21 (Alignment with ICANN's Future): The GNSO Council should regularly undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast their likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are well-represented in the policy-making process. | |||
25 | Paul Diaz | gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group | (It Depends) To the extent it is possible to predict in advance what stakeholder groups may be impacted by future policy development efforts, that would be very helpful. It is probably more likely though to be able to do that after specific policy issues are identified. Certainly, this seems like a very good recommendation to be implemented in Issue Reports. It would make more sense to commission an analysis that is specific to the policy development process, rather than a wide-ranging analysis that may serve no purpose. |
62 | Osvaldo Novoa | ISPCP | (It Depends) Whilst the ISPCP recognizes the need to understand future trends at an early stage it does not believe Council itself should undertake this role. Working closely with third party would facilitate an independant view that Council can then consider from a policy development perspective. |
196 | Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo | Business Constituency | Given the wealth of expertise available within the GNSO we would caution against paying third parties to conduct (funded) analysis. |
214 | Stephanie Perrin | NCUC/NCSG | We cannot see how independent analysis of trends in gTLDS is going to be useful in predicting trends for policy requirements. Seems like a waste of money. |
258 | |||
Greg Shatan | IPC | (Support) This is critical, but it is generally not the Council that is able to undertake or commission such analysis. This will require extensive ICANN Staff assistance and budget to have any properly balanced analysis. It is critical that any such analysis take into the views and needs of all stakeholders, and not merely the “Domain Name Industry.” | |
311 | Amr Elsadr |
| I agree. My personal thoughts on this is that studies that provide useful insight to policy development should be conducted to support the PDP. However, this should not happen without the GNSO Council having a decision-making capacity in the terms of reference of any study, as well as the ability to provide critical appraisal of any of the conclusions or methodology used to provide them. |
332 | Olivier Crepin-Leblond | ALAC | (Support) The ALAC supports this recommendation but asks for clarification for the term “those affected”: Are “those affected” the directly affected parties that are likely Contracted Parties, or the widely affected Community including end users that are referred to as “Consumers” in the Affirmation of Commitments? The ALAC strongly believes that the latter definition must be used. |
