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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Amr,

 

Many thanks for a thoughtful response.  

 

Let's see what, if anything, else comes up in response to this draft (and
your input below) and then we can try to gauge the best way forward.

 

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>
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/multistakeholde
r-innovation>
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>