Re: [council] Response to the call for Public Comment - ICANN Strategy Panels Draft Report

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for this excellent draft response. A few thoughts of my own:

You make it clear while addressing each of the recommendations that there are 
indeed existing mechanisms in line with what the MSI panel has concluded 
desirable. It seems you’re pointing out that the panel didn’t do a very good 
job of analysing how the GNSO PDP actually works before setting out to suggest 
“innovative” improvements, without actually saying it. This was a major problem 
with this panel, and I feel it is worthwhile to bluntly make that clear. I say 
this, not out of a desire to discredit the panel’s recommendations, but more as 
part of the critical appraisal of the research methods it utilised. Beth Novek 
was advised to explore the existing mechanisms by which the GNSO functions in 
BA, but opted not to. Considering the similarities between the panel’s 
recommendations and what actually takes place in the GNSO, had there been more 
insight gained, I suspect there might have been some very useful 
recommendations coming out of this panel. Perhaps something in the overarching 
comment?

On “Use Expert Networks”: This is one recommendation I am actually in agreement 
with (despite how the panel reached its conclusions). The GNSO does have a 
great deal of expertise in its ranks, and participating in WGs. However, I 
think there are areas in which more active outreach to experts in wouldn’t be 
so bad, particularly concerning policies being developed by the GNSO that 
conflict with certain privacy and data protection jurisdictions. To my 
knowledge, we haven’t done such a good job at that so far. This is evident with 
the data retention problem in the 2013 RAA, the “thick” WHOIS PDP’s inability 
to address privacy and data protection concerns it was chartered to address, as 
well as the EWG’s status update report reporting that more research on this 
matter needs to be conducted. Let’s not be too dismissive of this 
recommendation.

On “Impose Rotating Term Limits”: My understanding of this recommendation was 
not that it was exclusive to the Council, but also for officers of the 
different SGs and constituencies. I probably need to go back and check on this 
again. However, if that is the case, I don’t appreciate the sentiment of 
imposing anything on these groups. That’s rather extreme. The rules that govern 
term limits in the SGs and constituencies is determined by their respective 
charters/by-laws, and although subject to approval by the ICANN board of 
directors (and SIC I think), they should not be imposed by anyone. I have a 
problem with this recommendation in principle and wouldn’t mind making a point 
of it.

Thanks again for taking this up, Jonathan.

Amr

On Apr 2, 2014, at 12:07 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All,
>  
> In Singapore, I committed to draft a Council response to the call for Public 
> Comment - ICANN Strategy Panels Draft Report.
>  
> The call for public comment is located here:
>  
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategy-panels-25feb14-en.htm
>  
> As discussed, the draft response deals specifically with the output of the 
> MSI panel.
> We have repeatedly recognised that the remit and output of this panel appears 
> to be (or may be seen to be) uniquely and closely linked to the policy 
> development  work within the GNSO. 
>  
> The work of the panel is located here:
>  
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-innovation
>  
> I look forward to your comments and input on the attached draft.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> <Draft Response to MSI Strategy Panel Output - 02 April 2014.doc>