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: Jean Armour Polly <mom@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 07:21:51 -0400

From Wendy's message (below) it seems like ALAC's role is to ask for the issues report. We just raise the questions that are on the minds of our constituents.
It's up to others to decide whether or not to go for a PDP, and when. But we will have done our job--bringing relevant issues forward to ICANN staff.
Bruce is working on a briefing for us, the time frame is only weeks away, it seems that we can await that before taking a vote on asking for the 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.


At 4:17 PM +0200 7/5/06, Vittorio Bertola recently said:
sricciardi ha scritto:
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.

Actually, Annette already wrote that she is in touch with Bruce Tonkin and she'll ask for an opinion on this idea. As the Issues Report doesn't necessarily force the PDP, I would go for it, unless we really get a negative reaction from Bruce and other GNSO people (did anyone ask Avri, for example?)

At the same time, I agree that the GNSO already has other things on the agenda; so I would not assume that, after having got the report, we should immediately ask for the PDP. But, at least, we'll have put the issue on the agenda.
vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy