ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

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

RE: [alac] DRAFT Request for Issues Report

  • To: <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [alac] DRAFT Request for Issues Report
  • From: "sricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:09:21 -0300

Dear all,


I think we have a confusion here:


Jacqueline is talking about a BRIEFING, which is, in many ways, different
from an Issues Report: An Issues Report is NOT a briefing, and is a serious
step in the GNSO Policy Development Process. If we feel that such a process
is necessary, then we better talk with the GNSO and see what is the best way
to handle this, following the usual procedures and Bylaws requirements.


But, if we would like to learn some more about this problem, to asses in
which way are user interests affected, let´s arrange a briefing session.








-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Wendy
Enviado el: Miércoles, 05 de Julio de 2006 09:47 a.m.
Para: jam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: alac@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: Re: [alac] DRAFT Request for Issues Report


At 05:45 PM 7/4/2006, Jacqueline Morris wrote:

>I think that what we really want is for ICANN staff to look into it

>and do a report of some kind that explains the situation, the pros and

>cons the impact on the different constituencies, etc.


Precisely.  That's what an "Issue Report" is, as described in 

<http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>.  An ICANN staff 

manager creates the Issue Report and presents it to the GNSO Council 

for determination whether to initiate a PDP.


Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receiving either (i) an 

instruction from the Board; (ii) a properly supported motion from a 

Council member; or (iii) a properly supported motion from an Advisory 

Committee, the Staff Manager will create a report (an "Issue 

Report"). Each Issue Report shall contain at least the following:

a. The proposed issue raised for consideration;

b. The identity of the party submitting the issue;

c. How that party is affected by the issue;

d. Support for the issue to initiate the PDP;

e. A recommendation from the Staff Manager as to whether the Council 

should initiate the PDP for this issue (the "Staff Recommendation"). 

Each Staff Recommendation shall include the opinion of the ICANN 

General Counsel regarding whether the issue proposed to initiate the 

PDP is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and 

within the scope of the GNSO. In determining whether the issue is 

properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process, the General 

Counsel shall examine whether such issue:

1. is within the scope of ICANN's mission statement;

2. is broadly applicable to multiple situations or organizations;

3. is likely to have lasting value or applicability, albeit with the 

need for occasional updates;

4. will establish a guide or framework for future decision-making; or

5. implicates or affects an existing ICANN policy.




It's true that matters are basically out of our hands after the Issue 

Report is requested, but that's a structural problem.  The power we 

have is to raise an issue and then hope the process works from 

there.  I suppose we could request a pre-Issue Report to help ALAC in 

framing questions on which to ask for an Issue Report, but it's hard 

to see what that gains us.





>  If this report

>shows that it is very impactful, we can then thinkabout moving



>On 7/4/06, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>To be clear, I do think that this issue has an impact on the end users,

>>also that the impact is not as dramatic as Jean thinks. I am not saying

>>I am right and she is wrong, or vice-versa, just that this is what I

>>although I am happy to see figures or other facts that can convince me of

>>the contrary.


>>So, for the time being, if the matter is limited to requesting an "Issue

>>Report", I agree.

>>If, on the other hand, this will have as a consequence that a PDP will be

>>started, I strongly believe that the GNSO has far more important things on

>>the plate right now (like the WhoIs, IDN, gTLDs) and that it will be

>>extremely unwise to add another one.



>>Roberto Gaetano


>>ICANN Board Liaison



>> > -----Original Message-----

>> > From: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx] On

>> > Behalf Of Annette Muehlberg

>> > Sent: 04 July 2006 16:50

>> > To: Vittorio Bertola

>> > Cc: Jean Armour Polly; alac@xxxxxxxxx

>> > Subject: Re: [alac] DRAFT Request for Issues Report

>> >

>> > We all agree, that this is an important issue for end-users

>> > and the ALAC will take action in this regard.

>> >

>> > I am already in touch with Bruce, to ensure that we are

>> > absolutely clear about the process and its implications,

>> > especially about the question if, when an "Issues Report" is

>> > requested, it automatically begins the PDP process.

>> >

>> > I think it would make sense, that we as ALAC form a

>> > hypothesis first and maybe have it discussed with some more

>> > experts eg before our conf call

>> > (online) or live during our conf call the 10th of August.

>> > Then, we could come up with a formulation of our concerns of

>> > how domain monetization adversely affect Internet users and

>> > ask the GNSO for an Issues Report.

>> >

>> > Best

>> > Annette

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>> >

>> > > Jean Armour Polly ha scritto:

>> > >

>> > >> Now that we know the process, our chair may choose to call

>> > a vote on

>> > >> asking for an issues report on this topic. I believe it is

>> > of vital

>> > >> importance to end-users--although I am also quite sure

>> > that most of

>> > >> them have no idea what is taking place! Here is a chance

>> > for ALAC to

>> > >> shine and show that it really is looking out for end-users

>> > by asking

>> > >> ICANN to investigate the matter.

>> > >

>> > >

>> > > I am in favour of the issues report, especially since it

>> > doesn't force

>> > > us to request a PDP (so, it doesn't harm). However, did

>> > anyone discuss

>> > > this idea with Bruce? I would just like to avoid misunderstandings,

>> > > e.g. us being seen as going our way without listening, rather than

>> > > cooperating with everyone else on this matter.

>> > > Ciao

>> >




>Jacqueline Morris


>T&T Music and videos online



Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx

Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society







No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.9/382 - Release Date: 04/07/2006


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy