[governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO

Thu Dec 22 07:10:42 EST 2005

Caríssimo Raúl,

I think the best way to answer your doubt is precisely by exposing the 
issue to the list, as Danny did -- we deal which such broad and complex 
issues that it would be impossible to establish beforehand which ones 
could be brought to the list and which ones should not.

fraternal rgds

--c.a.

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
>
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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