| Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) | Call for Comments Open | Call for Comments Close | Vote Open | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31.07.2015 | Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization | ADOPTED 11Y, 0N, 0A | Olivier Crepin-Leblond | Larisa Gurnick | AL-ALAC-ST-0815-01-01-EN |
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Click here to download the Final Version
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
Download the Final Draft Statement here
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The Public Consultation provides a template for input in Docx format. Unfortunately, restrictions on the document appear to make it impossible to cut/paste its contents. Parts of the document template appear to be locked and some parts have pull-down menus. It also appears to be impossible to insert comments (using document review) in the document itself. Due to these difficulties, I have also generated a PDF copy of the document. Please comment on it by noting recommendation number + your comment.
Please also note that I have not filled the overall comments box and following on my concerns expressed in my comment below, please make suggestions for an overall comment about anything not included in the current recommendations. For example, can you think of any recommendation that's missing from the list?
22 Comments
Alan Greenberg
I am disturbing that 43 days in to this PC and 7 days from it closing, there are no comments here!
Perhaps this will be a start.
Both of these correspond to things that the ALAC has been saying for ages. Recommendation 8 is an echo of ATRT2 Recommendation 10.5. When we raised the subject at ICANN 53 (and pointed out that nothing had been done), we received feedback that all we ever do is complain that we need more money.
Perhaps in this form, the the idea may become more acceptable. I note that the only announced "outcome of 10.5 is the CROPP program, a program that was initiated prior to the ATRT2 recommendations being delivered and that does virtually nothing to support involvement in the policy processes.
This is an innovative suggestion and it deserves out strong support.
This is inline with suggestion that the ALAC has made. It is particularly applicable where the Public Interest and User issues are pitted against the interests of Contracted Parties.
As an added benefit, if done for the GNSO, there is increased chances that we could benefit as well.
This is interesting, but it also requires an assessment of how successful it is in practice. It is unclear hoe one does this in a WG where all participation is voluntary. But regardless, just adding people to the mailing list does not say anything about how much these people participate or contribute. If it is just a "tick off the boxes" exercise.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
I have read the full report and am preparing a fuller response. The great majority of recommendations are very similar to what the ALAC has been asking for both in past reviews, but also in ATLAS II recommendations and in meetings with GSE, the Board and the ICANN CEO. I can therefore say that we fully support all of the recommendations - but will propose comments for each recommendation in order to explain our support.
I am concerned that some of the outreach recommendations from the ATRT2 and other reviews have been ignored by GNSO Council at implementation since it was deemed that Global Stakeholder Engagement (GSE) was taking care of that. Councillors have not yet understood that GSE is a wider stakeholder engagement program (Sally Costerton's department) that does not focus specifically on Policy (David Olive's department). Perhaps should we note this and suggest that the two departments work closer together.
There are a couple of recommendations where I am unsure of implementation.
For example, recommendation #23, approving new GNSO Constituencies. (and other new GNSO Constituency recommendations)
I am concerned about the creation of more Constituencies, all of which might probably end up in the Non-Contracted Party House, thus further fragmenting the Non-Contracted Party House and increasing tension between Constituencies. We all know about the tension between NCUC and NPOC. Having more Consituencies might only continue to strengthen the Contracted Party House since their vote will be more homogeneous and they will be able to "pick and mix" within the Non-Contracted Party House in order to obtain a majority.
Finally, I am very concerned that none of the recommendations address the wider malaise about the balance of power in the GNSO and the potential for capture caused by a fragmented Non-Contracted Party House and a solid Contracted Party House. We keep on hearing "the GNSO is broken and needs to be reformed" and yet there is not one line in the report that actually investigates the validity of this assertion. I see this as an opportunity missed.
As I said, I'll soon put a fuller document online.
Carlton Samuels
The strategic objective for the ALAC is that given the role of GNSO in names and numbers policy making and reflecting on the brief for the ALAC in the ICANN ecosystem, its immediate action is to double down on anything in this report that tends to recommend expanding coverage of end user interests before Council, enabling equitable access to the policy development process for informed end user representatives and interests and all that allows early and sustained intervention in the policy making process.
Yes as well to all recommendations suggesting more measurement of outcomes; on the principle that that which is measured inevitably gets managed.
I have finally read thru the report and its a +1 to Alan's choices for emphasizing concurrence with the recommendations. Specifically:
Referencing Participation & Representation, the ALAC should trumpet Recommendations #s 1 - 4, 6, 7, 12, 32-36.
Referencing Continuous Development, the ALAC should trumpet Recommendations #s 8, 10, 11,14, 16-18
Referencing Transparency, the ALAC should trumpet Recommendations #s 24, 26 - 28
I would endorse OCL's ruminations on the balance of power in the GNSO by writing an entire section that caution the adoption of new constituencies without a change in the formula - and formulation! - for voting rights.
It is always the results that matter. And some of the recommendations pertaining look innocuous enough. But when analyzed in current dispensation, they present real risks to dilution of impact of the non-contracted parties. It seems reflexive to me that given what we know of the history of the non-contracted house in the ICANN ecosystem and regardless of the prospects for a set of newly-enabled contracted parties - see the EWG's contemplations, for example - vote splintering sometimes result in exactly less impact of smaller less powerful entities than anticipated. Lots of examples exist in politics politics to underscore this fact.
-Carlton
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
I think you mean Recommendation 3 is an echo of ATRT2 Recommendation 10.5.
I have taken this comment into account in the response, as well as the other points you have made in your comment. Please check whether more needs to be added.
Maureen Hilyard
I have been going through the recommendations as they relate to the Working groups (Recs 1-8) and have the following comments:
I agree with Alan that there are a lot of WG and engagement issues raised that the ALAC has been trying to deal with for ages:
.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Hello Maureen,
Thanks very much for your comments. I'll share a few comments on your comments:
Holly Raiche
I'd like to support many of the comments made, as follows:
I'd particularly like to support the comments made by Alan and Maureen in relation to recommendations 1-8 on participation in WG. And sorry, OCL, but language is a barrier and for policies that impact particularly on end users, there should be at least a trial on the provision of interpretation. I also support Maureen in pointing to the hours held - and the fact that it can make participation a challenge if they are held when it is VERY early morning in the Asia Pacific region. Once a week maybe okay, but only CLO can regularly manage those hours and then do a day's work. One recommendation that was not made, but picked up by Maureen is for a webinar at the time of calling for volunteers so that those not familiar with the issues can better understand what the WG will be doing.
I agree and really don't have anything to add on the financial issues - enough has been said already. And CROPP - that is being worked through, but I would like to see at least part of its metrics a better - or better informed - participation in ICANN.
Also participation, some people can't attend the actual meetings, but do read the transcripts and participate in the discussion on the mailing list, so be careful of metrics used to measure participation
PLEASE no more constituencies. I agree with OCL's concerns. It was MM who stood up in a public forum (forget which meeting - Costa Rica, I think) and pleaded for no more consumer constituencies. In his words, it is already broken!
The Policy and Implementation issues are being looked at and I support continuing involvement of WG members in the implementation phase. My example is the Whois conflicts implementation WG that has to deal with a policy that was stated in general terms - followed by an Implementation WG that translated the general policy into rules that cannot be implemented by registrars in countries with strong privacy laws (lots). So we are now in the middle of a WG to review the work of the original Implementation WG!
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Dear Holly,
OCL: Noted. I do not think we can add anything else, as this is a process that's already going on.
Thanks!
Holly Raiche
Thanks Olivier
Just one comment - we all know there should be time rotation. However, for both the IRTP-D and the PPSAI the calls were never rotated and ALWAYS in the wee hours of the morning. So a gentle reminder that, if broader participation is a priority, then some attention should be paid to the Asia-Pacific region
Ariel Liang
Comment from Christopher Wilkinson sent on 22 July 19:00 UTC.
==
More generally, I consider that much of the CWG and CCWG attack on the ICANN Board's accountability can be traced back to self-interested and indefensible GNSO positions which the Board has endorsed uncritically on the basis of 'bottom up' policy developoment. Several aspects of the new gTLD program which have proved to be unsustainable and indefensible can be traced back to positions espoused by the Registry and Registrar community.
Regarding the structure of GNSO, I can only say that the NCUC etc. members, although claiming Civil Society affiliation have serially failed to identify and support the public interest or to rein in the commercial objectives of the Registries and Registrars. Nom-com and other liaisons with GNSO appear not to have the necessary leverage.
ICANN's primary responsibility is the regulation of the conditions of fair competition in the DNS market. It has become clear that the community will not get anything like that from GNSO as presently structured.
I trust that this is clear and useful
Thomas Lowenhaupt
I prepared the following comment in response to Olivier's request for thoughts on the bicameral structure of the GNSO.
Tom Lowenhaupt
---------------
Olivier,
I've not had the opportunity to read the Westlake document, only the comments about it as presented on the At-Large wiki workspace. But having read your request about raising possible concerns now, I offer the following comment.
My ICANN involvement stems from an interest in the effective utilization of the Internet in cities. When I hear about a fixed bicameral GNSO structure, it raises a fundamental question: How are the concerns of city residents (now comprising more than 1/2 the world's population) to be heard within that structure?
For example, are the interests and concerns of New York City's 8.5 million residents adequately represented through the contractual "house"? While I'm not familiar with the minutia of the legal relationship between the city of New York and ICANN, it appears that today our city's residents are to address their concerns about the operation of the .nyc TLD to a city contractor based in the state of Virginia. When I explain the extant state of oversight of our city's TLD to fellow residents I get that "You gotta be kidding?" look.
At the ICANN 53 meeting I addressed the Board of Directors to suggest that, going forward, "informed consent" and "multistakeholder governance" be standard components of the city-TLD application process, and that the public interest would be found therein.
For now I've no conclusive answer to put forward as to how 1/2 the world's population should have their interests represented at ICANN and other digital venues. As you are aware, our organization is exploring the At-Large as a possible route for representation of our city's individual Internet users. But where in the GNSO?
Getting back to today's question about the current bicameral GNSO. At this stage of the Internet's development - with the Net becoming more important to our lives every day - it is essential that welcoming passageways to participation in the GNSO be provided for in the upcoming transition, both for cities and other stakeholders needing voice in the Net's governance.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lowenhaupt, Director
Connecting.nyc Inc.
Holly Raiche
Like Tom, I haven't had time to digest the whole report, but I"ll expand on my concern with the call for more constituencies.
The ICANN core value cited as the reason the Report provides for more constituencies is about broad participation in policy making. The formation of more constituences is not the only way to expand participation, and it ignores the existence and role of the ALAC. ALAC, with its representives from five regions, from a wide range of language groups and myriad internet user groups is far better placed to provide that broad participation. A better and more achievable way to achieve the broad participation sought is to support and encourage ALAC members to engage in policy processes.
Thomas Lowenhaupt
Holly,
I'm all for meaningful engagement through At-Large. And if the Transition provides for a real say for the At-Large, equal if not superior to the GNSO, I'm for cities working through them.
To my understanding, in Westlake, the GNSO is the presumed upper hand in decision making, with At-Large, GAC, etc. advisory. If that doesn't change, than cities need a role in GNSO to effectively participate in ICANN processes.
But to be clear, I'm for the At-Large assuming the leading role in the ICANN's decision making process. The Transition should provide a route for that eventuality.
Best,
Tom
Ariel Liang
Comment from Christian de Larrinaga sent on 22 July 2015 at 22:02 UTC.
==
I have an observation based on the observation in the Westlake materials. The case is made that the GNSO is largely North American or European and male. Quite a bit of the follow on has been discussing how to increase participation from a broader section of the global community and so on, and whether GNSO has really engaged with that as a core agenda. All very worthy and important.
What is not mentioned or if it is has, is buried in the vast amount of guff; is that the entire gtld process in recent years has been dominated by the views, interests and expectations of that "constituency".
What would I think be a useful response for an At Large body to make is to ask (remind) how many gtld registries and tld's are domiciled both legally and operationally in each of the ICANN regions both before and after the recent expansion of gtld space under the GNSO's auspices.
The underlying question to ask is whether the Westlake report may reveal a hidden pattern that ICANN GNSO is self-reinforcing the domain name business geo politically and whether that is underpinning the Westlake observation of the concentration of the GNSO constituency as North American and European. If so that would have deep consequences for ICANN to work towards a more balanced global distribution if gtld's are to be perceived as a global resource.
Vanda Scartezini
i did not comment before beaches my views related to GNSO review is maybe too radical to have any value. But I can share it here
besides agree with Maureen and many of your comments related to WG, my view is: this review haven't touch the main problem which is the whole division of SO in ICANN. hence inside GNSO -
I have talked about this at the alumni ( group of former board members) some time ago when this review started, but normally people are a little afraid about changes...
I believe we should create one more SO for commercial users to allow the general business community to join ICANn with a more relevant status ( a place for other that are impact individual users but has no accountability to the society, as facebook, google , microsoft, apple, IBM etc etc etc and become independent from the DNS business.
as USERS , they also depend, like individual users, on DNS industry services and shall be independent from them. in this new community we would have non commercial together with them. But even Non commercial needs a very important review. being for so many years in ICANN I do not see any really good work from NCUC.
I also believe NPOC- which is trying to do a better job, shall be independent of NCUC, since they have no authority to select their members, for instance.
As you see, fro me the whole work was very weak and had none or few value to GNSO. Sorry for being not constructive. kisses to all
Ariel Liang
Comment from Roberto Gaetano sent on 23 Jul 2015 at 21:47 UTC.
==
If I remember correctly (and I really should, as I was the Chair of the GNSO Review WG as well as the Chair of the Structural Improvements Committee) one of the clauses of the deal was that the structure of the GNSO (i.e. the creation of the “Stakeholder Groups”) was going to be reviewed at the next iteration.
R.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Hello everyone,
thank you very much for your comments which have been very helpful.
I suggest appending the following text to the reply to Recommendation #23
Also adding the following main text in the General Comments Section:
--- cut here ---
Whilst the ALAC support almost all of the recommendations made in the Westlake Report, the ALAC is concerned that the vast majority of the recommendations focus on GNSO Working Groups and suggest making small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO Council's bicameral structure.
Examples of areas for review are numerous and not limited to:
The ALAC believes that the complex issues of GNSO structure and processes need to be studied now. The ALAC reminds the Reviewers of the At-Large Future Challenges Working Group R3 White Paper (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-01oct12-en.htm ) drafted in 2012 and containing proposals that should be explored.
Reinforcing ALAC’s view is its recollection of several of its members that during the first GNSO Review, it was understood that Constituencies and the creation of “Stakeholder Groups” were going to be reviewed at the next iteration. Tragically, this is missing from the current report.
--- cut here ---
As we only have 24 hours until the closing of the comment period, please let me know ASAP if this is satisfactory.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
Ariel Liang
Comment from Christopher Wilkinson sent on 24 July 2015 at 17:03 UTC
==
Olivier. Supporting your text, as a whole. Thankypu. +1 CW
Ariel Liang
Comment from William Drake sent on 24 July 2015 at 19:52 UTC.
==
Hi
On Jul 23, 2015, at 12:02 AM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
The case is made that the GNSO is largely North American or
European and male.
This applies only to the business parts of the GNSO, not civil society. The authors of the report systematically demonstrated an inability to even bother to look at the web pages or mail list archives of NCSG, NCUC, and NPOC before making generalizations about them, relying instead on bits of hearsay from not quite disinterested actors who’ve been “on the other side” on various issues.
NCUC has 428 members from 101 countries, including 108 noncommercial organizations and 320 individuals http://www.ncuc.org/about/members/ We’ve not done a demographic breakdown lately but believe about half are from the global South. NPOC lists about 60 organizational members, many from the global South http://www.npoc.org/?p=members2015june. And there are some people who've joined the SG but neither constituency, I don’t have their numbers handy. In any event, the numbers indicate that the CS part of the GNSO is not largely North American or European and male.
Best
Bill
Alan Greenberg
I suggest adding a new paragraph at the end.
The ALAC is disappointed that the review has not evaluated to what extent the current GNSO Structure meets the GNSO and ICANN needs. The structure, with contracted parties representing half of the Council voting power, was invented as a result of the last GNSO review, prior to the New gTLD Program and before registries could own registrars. The ALAC is very concerned that the current structure may not be able to adequately address issues where the public interest is in conflict with the interests of contracted parties. This is essential in light of:
ICANN's increased focus on the Public Interest (PI);
the increased desire and need to be demonstrably accountable; and
the recommendations of the Policy and Implementation WG which will require ALL policy issues to go back to the GNSO for resolution instead of being addressed at the Board level where Board members have a duty to balance stakeholder desires vs the PI.
Holly Raiche
I'm happy with this - but please correct the second word - I think we are ALAC
Alan Greenberg
I think we are too. But my fingers apparently are not fully aware.
Fixed.