[governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think it is ok.  It think it is good to see the discussion in a  
public venue and i think that given Tunis Agenda and the whole drive  
toward improvement for ICANN, that this remains an IGC issue.

My only hope is that it won't drown out discussions on other topics,  
but i don't expect that will happen.

i think it is good to keep the caucus open to any and all topics on IG.

a.

On 21 dec 2005, at 11.45, Raul Echeberria wrote:

>
> 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
>


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