[ga] the further evolution of...

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

At the Wellington Public Forum, Vint Cerf used the
phrase "the further evolution of ALAC".  As we move
down the road with scheduled reviews of ICANN entities
(such as the GNSO and ALAC), I don't want to feel like
we are locked into a single choice, namely the
iteration of deficiencies within a particular group
and a new Board plan to deal with those particular
problems... I make this statement as this sole choice
evolutionary approach may not be the best overall
solution for the ICANN community.

We have seen the tangible results of that
well-intentioned but failed approach in the workings
of the GNSO (a body that continues to perform poorly
in spite of all its predecessor DNSO deficiencies
having been cited, and a new plan having been effected
through the ICANN Reform that resulted in the creation
of the successor GNSO).  

The GNSO Council, for example, still hasn't
implemented the bulk of the changes suggested by the
Patrick Sharry independent review, and we all know
that at the constituency level there has been little
to no discussion on any of the items covered by the
GNSO's most recent PDPs -- the deliberative process at
this level is at a nonproductive standstill... and
it's clearly a very real failure that seriously
impacts the quality of the advice that the Board will
receive.

I think that what we need is real competition in the
policy advisory arena.  

If two or more groups are competing for the attention
of the Board on policy considerations, I think that we
can expect much more substantive work-product to
emerge.  

Personally, I like the approach recently taken by the
Board that appoints a Presidential Committee to
investigate an area (such as IDN) even though an SO
(such as the GNSO) also has the topic within its
purview.

Establishing a series of such focused committees may
well be the best way forward (as I expect groups like
the ALAC and the GNSO to continue to disappoint).  

We could use a Committee to suggest a policy to deal
with the misuse of the 5-day add/grace period.  We
could use a Committee to investigate registrar
circumvention of the deletes policy and to recommend a
revised policy.  We still need revisions to the UDRP.

These committees could be populated by both appointees
and volunteers.  Eventually, groups like the GNSO and
the ALAC will have to improve their respective
performance or face the very real threat of coming to
an evolutionary dead end.

There may be other approaches which could be helpful
(and yes, some of these we talked about during the
earlier DNSO Review process).  Ultimately, I think
that we should consider and forward a set of options
for the Board to review.

We see the problems all around us.  We could use some
alternative proposed solutions; otherwise we're just
going to get a recycled GNSO and a recycled ALAC that
will continue to perform poorly.  Some fresh thinking
on a better structural approach would be appreciated.
 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com