RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Good initiative, Michael.

As I recall, in the video interview with PDT and RB posted on the ICANN home 
page at the conclusion of the Cartagena meeting, PDT is asked about this 
open/closed question --  and after noting that ICANN’s default position is to 
hold open meetings, he then says the matter hasn’t been worked out yet, and 
then further volunteers that while the meeting might be for the most part open, 
it might be closed in part (or key participants might head into a back room) 
when sensitive matters or an impasse arose. So I would suggest that the letter 
address that possibility and urge that matters not be resolved behind closed 
doors and then brought back into an open meeting simply for ratification, with 
the community unable to observe the dialogue that led to the resolution.

Also, while I’m not suggesting it be raised in the letter (which should be 
confined to the transparency issue) it’s quite likely that any resolution of 
new gTLD matters will be in general terms, as is the usual practice in large 
meetings, with technical details left to staff. Given the short time between 
Geneva and San Francisco it’s not clear to me how staff will incorporate these 
revisions in an amended proposed final Guidebook and make that available to the 
community with sufficient time to permit adequate review prior to SF. I guess 
we’ll just see how that goes.

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Michael D. Palage
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:21 PM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting

Hello All,
As many of you may know the ICANN Board and GAC have scheduled an 
intercessional meeting in Geneva next month to resolve outstanding issues in 
connection with the new gTLD implementation process. Unfortunately to date 
details of whether this meeting will be open/closed to observers has not yet 
been publicly addressed.  As a strong advocate toward openness and transparency 
I have drafted the following text which calls for the meeting to be open to 
observers, I did so after talking with several ICANN stakeholders that shared 
these same concerns.   It would be my hope that SOs/ACs/SGs and individuals 
could make their voice heard on this important issue. I welcome any 
questions/comments.
Best regards,
Michael

DRAFT TEXT
Over the past eighteen months ICANN has had the opportunity to navigate through 
a number of challenges and achievements:  expiration of the Joint Project 
Agreement and the negotiation and signing of the Affirmation of Commitments; 
introduction of new internationalized top-level domains in the ccTLD fast track 
process; preparing for the pending exhaustion of IPv4 address space while 
advancing the visibility of IPv6; and progress on addressing remaining work on 
the proposed Applicant Guidebook/process to introduce new gTLDs, including IDNs.

As important as these initiatives have been, ICANN is now experiencing a new 
challenge, an upcoming consultation between the ICANN Board and Government 
Advisory Committee (GAC). This consultation appears to be the first time that 
ICANN’s Board and the GAC will use provisions set forth in Article XI Section 2 
to resolve situations where the Board has decided to reject GAC advice.

In many ways, the legacy of ICANN’s leadership will be significantly impacted 
by how the parameters are established for this upcoming consultation between 
the ICANN Board and the GAC, which appears to have been scheduled for the end 
of February in Geneva. Switzerland.

While the undersigned support this meeting as an important step in bringing 
about the responsible conclusion of the new gTLD implementation process, and 
other issues as defined in the GAC Communiqué, we call on the Board to provide 
certain safeguards to protect ICANN’s legitimacy as a bottom up, private sector 
led consensus driven global organization.

We respectfully request that this consultation between the Board and GAC be 
open to observers, consistent with the practices of GAC – Board interactions at 
the public meetings which ICANN holds three times a year. Since this is the 
first meeting of this nature in ICANN’s eleven year history, the precedent for 
all future such meetings will be established by this meeting.

We note that no clear communication on this aspect of the meeting has yet been 
provided. Therefore, we believe it is timely to express the views of the ICANN 
community on this topic. Specifically, that ICANN should provide for both 
onsite and remote observers to this interaction. An examination of the relevant 
ICANN bylaws, commitments and best practices are provided below:


Article I, Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws states that “ICANN and its constituent 
bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent 
manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness.”

Article 3 of the Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) states that ICANN commits to 
“ensur[ing] that decisions made related to the global technical coordination of 
the DNS are made in the public interest and are accountable and transparent.” 
While the GAC is clearly suited to provide advice to ICANN regarding “public 
interest”, this advice should be provided in an open meeting accommodating 
observers.

The new gTLD policy development and implementation process has been a 
multi-year process that has taken place through a series of public 
consultations, and since the majority of the items that will be discussed in 
this intercessional meeting are about concerns of the GAC regarding aspects of 
the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, we ask that this meeting provide for both 
onsite and remote observers.

Holding the intercessional meeting in a closed manner will raise questions of 
legitimacy, and could have a chilling effect on future ICANN policy development 
processes. We believe it is also not consistent with the form of multi 
stakeholder model that ICANN embodies. It may even have a negative impact on 
ICANN’s legitimacy within the broader stakeholder community, which has 
supported it over the last twelve years.

Recently, ICANN was a recent signatory to a collaborative letter raising 
concerns about the actions taken by the Commission on Science and Technology 
for Development (CSTD) Bureau to exclude non-government actors from full 
participation in the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance 
Forum.  ICANN participated in both the UN Consultation on Enhanced Cooperation, 
and in the CSTD Panel held on December 17, and actively supported the 
importance of allowing private sector stakeholders in these meetings.  It is 
hard to reconcile ICANN’s position in this letter if it organizes a closed 
intercessional meeting with the GAC to resolve outstanding issues in the new 
gTLD Applicant Guidebook/process.

We accept that there may be space limitations for observers, as there often are 
in the face to face ICANN meetings. Given logistics and budgetary restraints, 
it is unlikely that large numbers of in-person attendees would travel to 
Geneva. Therefore, ICANN should also provide real time transcription and audio 
streaming of the proceedings, with an MP3 recording in a timely manner.