WT A drafts of suggested ALAC public comment on ATRT draft recommendations
Yrjo, 5 December - Draft 3
ALAC Statement on the ATRT Draft Proposed Recommendations
The ATRT has done a commendable job in assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board, putting on the record, among other things, that presently there is no agreement on what constitutes the advice of the GAC to the Board, and suggesting that there should be a more formal, documented process in asking for and giving that advice.
That there is need for improvement in this regard concerning the GAC, whose status and role are already enshrined in the Bylaws, raises an obvious question about the role of the other Advisory Committees. If their roles in the ICANN structure is meant to be seriously considered, their advisory processes too need to be more formal and documented like those suggested by the ATRT for the GAC.
On issues that have implications within the area of competence of any Advisory Committee, its advice should be sought and considered by relevant SO’s or the Board. An Advisory Committee should also be able to put such issues to the SO’s or Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies.
If the advice from an Advisory Committee is not followed in the development of the policy, a response should be sent to the committee with an explanation, or an explanation should be provided in the policy document or in the minutes of its discussion.
ALAC recommends designating or establishing a journal of record and adding the requirement for notice publication, soliciting comments for at least thirty days, and responding meaningfully to public comments, thus creating a record necessary to facilitate a full and timely review of any action.
Concerning public comments processes, ATRT should consider how to compare and rank the representativeness and priority of comments from individuals, groups and organizations of different sizes. ALAC points out that its own comments and those from RALO’s, have gone through an extensive bottom up consultation process, the primary purpose of which is to maximize participation and the value of the comments. ALSes speaking together carry more weight than each of them sending in comments separately and encourages proactive evaluation rather than reactive comment.
Additionally, that ALAC notes that so far, the ATRT recommendations do not appear to address point e) of the para 9.1. of the AOC ("assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations and effective and timely policy development"). In light of what happened with Rec 6, improvements are clearly needed in this regard -- including how the results of such deliberations are taken into account. Since cross-constituency activity is very beneficial for our multi-stakeholder model, there should be predictable mechanism for creating such cross-constituency activity, recognizing it, or reporting it.
Yrjo and Work Team A, 3 December - Draft 2
ALAC Statement on the ATRT Draft Proposed Recommendations
The ATRT has done a commendable job in assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board, putting on the record, among other things, that there is no agreement on what constitutes the advice of the GAC to the Board, and suggesting that there should be a more formal, documented process in asking for and giving that advice.
That there should be need for improvement in this regard concerning the GAC, whose status and role are already enshrined in the Bylaws, raises an obvious question about the role of the other Advisory Committees. If their advisory role in the ICANN structure is meant to be taken seriously, they too would benefit from improvements like those suggested by the ATRT for the GAC. As a minimum, there should be provisions about the modalities of their advisory processes, including what happens if the advice is not taken.
The ALAC Improvements work team A will suggest Bylaw changes to ICANN’s Legal Department along these lines:
- There needs to be explicit rules that indicate the priority of a RALO’s public comment versus one from Mr. or Ms. “X.” Which is given more priority and taken more seriously? There is not a clear understanding of what it means for the Board to receive a piece of advice from a RALO or ALS.
- The comments received during public comment periods need to be ranked in a certain way, rather than leaving their priority up to lobbying, which is what the case has so far been.
Additionally, that ALAC notes that so far, the ATRT recommendations do not appear to address point e) of the para 9.1. of the AOC ("assessing the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross community deliberations and effective and timely policy development"). In light of what happened with Rec 6, improvements are clearly needed in this regard -- including how the results of such deliberations are taken into account. Even though cross-constituency activity is very beneficial for our multi-stakeholder model, there is actually no set, predictable mechanism for creating such cross-constituency activity, recognizing it, or reporting it.
Yrjo, 15 November - Draft 1
The ATRT has done a commendable job in assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC and its interaction with the Board, putting on the record, among other things, that there is no agreement on what constitutes the advice of the GAC to the Board, and suggesting that there should be a more formal, documented process in asking for and giving that advice.
That there should be need for improvement in this regard concerning the GAC, whose status and role are already enshrined in the Bylaws, raises an obvious question about the role of the other Advisory Committees. If their advisory role in the ICANN structure is meant to be taken seriously, they too would benefit from improvements like those suggested by the ATRT for the GAC. As a minimum, there should be provisions about the modalities of their advisory processes, including what happens if the advice is not taken.
The ALAC Improvements work team A is going to suggest Bylaw changes along these lines as far as the ALAC is concerned.
Yrjo notes:
- Of course, the ATRT was specifically asked to discuss the role and effectiveness of the GAC only, not those of other AC's. However, their finding that there is no consensus even about what constitutes GAC advice, could be used to highlight the even less satisfactory situation in connection with other AC's.
WT A members' comments
Add comments here.
