ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] GNSO questions regarding ALAC Statement on GNSO WG Guidelines

  • To: GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] GNSO questions regarding ALAC Statement on GNSO WG Guidelines
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:19:43 -0500
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There have been several questions regarding the ALAC statement on GNSO WG Guidelines. I would be happy to elaborate during tomorrow's meeting if it is desired.

The ALAC statement says, inter alia,

"Specifically, we recommend that the GNSO involves active representation from other constituencies -- and in particular ICANN's standing Advisory Committees -- in policy development Working Groups, from the beginning. Such early involvement ensures widespread community investment in the policy process, especially from stakeholder representative groups that are strategically mandated by ICANN bylaws to be involved in policy. Early community participation in policy issues avoids the need to resort to corrective measures that are never as effective as "doing it right the first time". Such corrective measures, a number of which have proliferated to address deficiencies in the existing policy process, exact a significant cost in time delay, human resources, and monetary expense by both ICANN and third parties."

I earlier said that I believe that the ALAC is supporting the current process, and suggesting that the GNSO be even more pro-active, specifically with the ACs which do not routinely participate. The ALAC has been active in such WG over the last several years, but the same cannot be said for the other ACs. History indicates that public calls for participation alone are generally not sufficient.

This generated the request that I be more explicit if the ALAC is requesting changes in the final product.

My initial interpretation of the ALAC statement was correct. The current outreach recommendation on page 6 of http://gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf says:

Depending upon the scope of the Working Group and its intended subject matter, the following avenues could be explored: - Publication of announcement on relevant ICANN web sites, including by not limited to the GNSO and other Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee web pages. - Distribution of announcement to GNSO Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, and/or other ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. - Circulation of announcement to organizations that are considered to have expertise/knowledge/interest in relation to the subject matter of the Working Group.

The ALAC believes that more personal, one-to-one contact would be helpful in getting the attention of other groups when their input would be useful. General announcements do not attract sufficient attention. For instance, the GNSO Chair or the Interim WG Chair could reach out to the GAC Chair, or individuals known to be knowledgeable or interested.

That being said, I am not sure this needs to be enshrined in the formal document. But if the GNSO feels that such enshrinement is necessary to make it happen, then perhaps it should be.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>