[governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO

Danny Younger dannyyounger at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 21 11:02:31 EST 2005


According to the list description:  "This list is for
discussion of governance-related topics around WSIS.
The topic includes global communication governance and
Internet governance. Initially, it also includes
intellectual property rights and other relevant topics
that members may bring up."

The entire point of the WSIS as it pertains to
Internet Governance (at least from from my
perspective) was to recognize and repair deficiencies
in Internet governance structures, and if necessary,
to introduce new models.

My contributions on this topic have been presented
with a view toward taking actionable steps to repair
such deficiences, and if necessary to introduce new
models if the old ones can't be salvaged.

If this forum is not the appropriate place for
constructive work along these lines, then I will be
happy to find a more suitable venue so that some of
this work may proceed in a timely fashion without
interrupting the initiatives that are in progress

I will await the recommendation of the group prior to
any further postings on this topic.

Thank you for advising me of your concern.

Best wishes,

--- Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic.net> 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
> >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
=== message truncated ===

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org

More information about the Governance mailing list