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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks Jonathan and Marika for the draft + updates. My last comment regarding 
rotating term limits was not included in the updated draft, but I realise that 
the point I made was not relevant to the GNSO's PDP or this council’s role in 
its management. Just wanted to say that it was (as far as I’m concerned) 
appropriate to leave it out.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Apr 19, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> All,
>  
> Picking this up again as the deadline is approaching for submission of 
> comments. 
>  
> Given the workload and everything going on, I have asked for Marika’s help 
> which I have to acknowledge she has helpfully provided.
>  
> The attached revised daft includes:
>  
> 1.       Integration of Amr’s contributions below.
> 2.       Recognition of John’s point regarding the Council’s input and the 
> individual GNSO SG or constituency input (see below).
>  
> “The focus of our contribution is of those aspects of the recommendations 
> that specifically relate to the GNSO Council’s role as manager of the policy 
> development process. Please note that GNSO Stakeholder Groups and/or 
> Constituencies may submit additional comments on aspects of the 
> recommendations that are specific to their role in the GNSO eco-system.”
>  
> I look forward to your feedback and ideally support to submit a letter in 
> substantially this form asthe deadline is 30 April 2014 and no reply period 
> is envisaged.
>  
> Thank-you
>  
> Jonathan
>  
>  
> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 02 April 2014 12:02
> To: jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] Response to the call for Public Comment - ICANN 
> Strategy Panels Draft Report
>  
> 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>
>  
> <Draft Response to MSI Strategy Panel Output - updated 15 April 2014.doc>