[bc-gnso] ICANN staff misuse the word "implementation" in order to avoid going through the GNSO for new policies

[George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi folks,

During yesterday's Registration Abuse Policies working group, the
issue of “policy” creation and how it should be done properly came up.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00206.html
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rap-20090601.mp3

Fast forward to 27:10 (27 minutes and 10 seconds) of the MP3 recording
and listen to the next 2 minutes where I ask Margie Milam of ICANN a
question about policy vs. implementation. At 27:24 or so she says the
ICANN Bylaws *require* policy work to go through the GNSO. But, at
28:05 or so she says “The IRT work is *implementation work.*” !!! She
dances around the issue for the next 40 seconds.

Policies *need* to go through the GNSO. However, ICANN Staff are
describing *all* the new gTLD stuff as *implementation*, even though
they are definitely creating new policy. Furthermore, take a look at
the IRT’s full name “Implementation Recommendation Team.” Once again,
this is doublespeak by ICANN, a way to circumvent proper procedures.
These recommendations *are policy* and should be going through the
GNSO. That would have resulted in balanced work, instead of the
abomination and extreme report we received.

So, be watchful, as ICANN staff are mischaracterizing and deliberately
calling things “implementation” in order to be able to do as much as
possible in terms of policy creation in an unaccountable manner.

Whether you're a supporter or an opponent of new gTLDs, whether you're
a supporter or opponent of the IRT, this unaccountable behaviour of
staff should be of concern, as it undermines the the role of the GNSO,
and thus the role of the BC. I would hope this would be raised in the
GNSO Council, as it is being neutered by staff and made more
irrelevant day after day.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/