Recommendation 28
That section 6.1.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures be revised, as shown in Appendix 6, to clarify that key clauses are mandatory rather than advisory, and to institute meaningful sanctions for non-compliance where appropriate.
| Working Party (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): | CG - Accept with modification: Who would decide what the key clauses are? How would sanctions be enforced? |
|---|---|
| Staff (initial assessment of feasibility and usefulness): |
Rationale: MK: Accept as-is. |
| Basis for Assessment: | |
| Work in Progress: | |
| Expected Completion Date for Work in Progress: | |
| Milestones: | |
| Responsibility: |
Public Comments Received
Comment # | Submitted By | Affiliation | Comment |
Recommendation 28 (Transparency): That section 6.1.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures be revised, as shown in Appendix 6, to clarify that key clauses are mandatory rather than advisory, and to institute meaningful sanctions for non-compliance where appropriate. | |||
32 | Paul Diaz | gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group | (Not Sure) Who would decide what the key clauses are? How would sanctions be enforced? |
69 | Osvaldo Novoa | ISPCP | (Support) |
194 | Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo | Business Constituency | Who would define/apply “meaningful sanctions”? |
265 | Greg Shatan | IPC | (Do Not Support) IPC does not support making everything in the GNSO Operating Procedures mandatory for all groups subject to it. While the IPC itself seeks to comply fully with these procedures, many of them are inappropriate for other groups, notably the Commercial Stakeholder Group. When this structure was imposed on IPC and the other two constituencies, it was with the clear understanding that CSG would remain a very lightweight structure, unburdened by procedural requirements that are inappropriate for it. For example, making provision for membership by “legal and natural persons” is irrelevant to CSG, whose only members are the three constituencies involved. The draft review reflects at most a superficial understanding of why the terms of the operating procedures were deliberately phrased as they were, and consequently reaches the wrong conclusions. This recommendation requires further study and a more nuanced analysis. |
309 | Amr Elsadr |
| I agree with this recommendation, however, this should not be implemented as a result of a Westlake recommendation to the board SIC. The GNSO Council should discuss this recommendation, and perhaps request that the GNSO SCI take this up as a project. |
339 | Olivier Crepin-Leblond | ALAC | (Support) The ALAC supports this recommendation. |
357 | Steve Metalitz, https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working/transcript-gnso-review-21jun15-en | GNSO Working Session | My question on the GNSO operating procedures, your Recommendation 28 calls for revision for - basically you went through that and you changed the may to must and, you know, should to shall. And I wonder what your investigation showed about why those phrases were drafted in an advisory fashion in the first place. Having had some role in that, my recollection is that there was a strong feeling that it was not really the job of ICANN to make every constituency and every stakeholder group function in exactly the same way. One size did not fit all. So I wondered what your investigation showed about why that was wrong or why that position should be abandoned. |
