[governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO

[Raul Echeberria]

Danny:

I very much respect your concerns regarding the GNSO PDP, but I am not 
sure if this list is the right place to have this discussion about such 
specific issue of a specific part of the structure of a specific 
organization related with Internet Governance.

When I say that I am not sure, I am just saying that, I am not sure.
Probably some others could help us to clarifiy what kind of issues 
should be discussed in this list and what not.

Raúl



Danny Younger escribió:

>I would like to discuss what Wolfgang has called "the
>frustrating situation with the GNSO".
>
>On Friday 2 December 2005, the GNSO Council voted to
>implement a Policy Development Process on New TLDS. 
>This vote started the clock ticking.  Per the bylaws,
>the GNSO Policy Development Process requires that all
>Constituency Statements 
>be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five
>calendar days after initiation of the PDP.  
>
>We are now three weeks into the process with these
>Statements due in another two weeks.  The issues
>involved are rather complex and require a tremendous
>amount of discussion and analysis in order to arrive
>at substantive policy recommendations.
>
>Yet as I review the available publicly archived
>constituency discussion lists, I cannot point to one
>single constituency that has even started to talk
>about the issues raised by this PDP.
>
>If no substantive work is being done at the ICANN
>constituency level on policy matters, then we have a
>real problem facing us that needs to be addressed.
>
>As many of you know, the General Assembly is no longer
>part of the GNSO structure (it was eliminated by the
>Board during their earlier "Reform") -- yet what
>remains of the GA discussion list is the only place
>within ICANN where thoroughgoing discussion of this
>PDP is happening.  Since 5 December there have been in
>excess of 250 postings on the topic of the PDP.  The
>issues are important to the few of us that remain on
>this list and rightfully deserve a full airing.
>
>We are doing this work, even though we have no voting
>rights within the GNSO, in part because of the failure
>of the GNSO constituencies to get down to business. 
>We understand the nature of the GNSO problems, one of
>which is "likemindedness" at the constituency level --
>if everyone in a group is predisposed to a certain
>viewpoint then little debate ever emerges at the
>constituency level and rarely does deep discussion on
>a topic materialize.  This is a flaw in the system
>that had previously been attended to by the existence
>of a cross-constituency platform (the GA) which
>facilitated lively and volatile debate.
>
>With the GA no longer functioning as a recognized
>institution, we now readily see the consequences of
>the Board's decision to eliminate this platform -- the
>GNSO itself has become a moribund institution.  
>
>If the Constituencies do manage to produce a Statement
>within the next two weeks, we all know how this will
>happen (and I'll use the Non-Commercial Constituency
>as an example although I could just as easily pick on
>the BC or ISPC or others):
>
>Someone will suggest to Milton at the last minute that
>he prepare a statement, then after a one page brief is
>prepared one or two constituency members will send in
>a note saying "Great job!" or "Good work" and without
>even the benefit of a vote that document will become
>the constituency Statement.
>
>Sorry, but that process is just too shoddy.  
>
>ICANN deserves better than what it is getting.  In my
>view, the overall problem stems from a flaw in the
>GNSO construct that can only be corrected by Board
>action.  I look forward to the Board taking action. 
>This blight cannot be allowed to continue.
>
>
>
>The Terms of reference for new gTLDs
>
>1.  Should new generic top level domain names be
>introduced?
> 
>a.  Given the information provided here and any other
>relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO
>should assess whether there is sufficient support
>within the Internet community to enable the
>introduction of new top level domains. If this is the
>case the following additional terms of reference are
>applicable.
> 
>2.  Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains
> 
>a.  Taking into account the existing selection
>criteria from previous top level domain application
>processes and relevant criteria in registry services
>re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which
>specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the
>use and usability of the Internet. In particular,
>examine ways in which the allocation of new top level
>domains can meet demands for broader use of the
>Internet in developing countries. 
>
>b.  Examine whether preferential selection criteria
>(e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would
>encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the
>needs of Internet users. 
>
>c.  Examine whether additional criteria need to be
>developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the
>security and stability of the Internet.
> 
>3.  Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains 
>
>a.  Using the experience gained in previous rounds,
>develop allocation methods for selecting new top level
>domain names.
> 
>b.  Examine the full range of allocation methods
>including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served
>and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of
>allocation that best enhance user choice while not
>compromising predictability and stability. 
>
>c.  Examine how allocation methods could be used to
>achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in
>domain name registration services and encouraging a
>diverse range of registry services providers.
> 
>4.  Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top
>Level Domains
> 
>a.  Using the experience of previous rounds of top
>level domain name application processes and the recent
>amendments to registry services agreements, develop
>policies to guide the contractual criteria which are
>publicly available prior to any application rounds.
> 
>b.  Determine what policies are necessary to provide
>security and stability of registry services.
> 
>c.  Determine appropriate policies to guide a
>contractual compliance programme for registry
>services. 
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance