<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting
- To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting
- From: <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 14:13:55 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Mike,</div><div><br></div><div>Sorry for my delay in
responding. I agree that it would be, as is said on Sunday, "truly right
and just" for the meeting to be open to attendees, both local and remote.
</div><div><br></div><div>Even though I spent my youth as an apprentice in an
Italian butcher shop where one bit of wisdom was "if you saw how sausage is
made, you'd never eat it," I don't think such sleight-of-hand works in the
bottom-up, consensus-driven rules that govern
ICANN.</div><div><br></div><div>There is, of course, precedent for ICANN to
move issues forward behind closed doors, revealing only the resolution.
It has been a bad idea each time. This time,
too.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Berard<br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid
blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black;
font-family: verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board - GAC Meeting<br>
From: "Michael D. Palage" <<a
href="mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx";>michael@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
Date: Wed, January 05, 2011 3:20 pm<br>
To: <<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>><br>
<br>
<style>
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2
4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper
li.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoNormal {margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:link, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:visited, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper p.MsoAcetate, #wmQuoteWrapper li.MsoAcetate, #wmQuoteWrapper
div.MsoAcetate {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.BalloonTextChar {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle19 {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#1F497D;}
#wmQuoteWrapper .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in
1.0in 1.0in;}
#wmQuoteWrapper div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;}
</style><div class="WordSection1"><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom: 12pt;">Hello All,<o:p></o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom: 12pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom: 12pt;">Best regards,<o:p></o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom:
12pt;">Michael<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom: 12pt;">DRAFT
TEXT<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:
115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;"> <o:p></o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:
115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;">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:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin-left: 32pt; line-height:
115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-left: 32pt; line-height: 115%;">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.”
<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:
115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-left: 31.5pt; text-indent: 0.5pt; line-height:
115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-left: 32pt; line-height:
115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-left: 32pt; line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-left: 32pt; line-height:
115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-left: 32pt; line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;">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.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;"> <o:p></o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;">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. <o:p></o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:
115%;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"
style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom: 12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div><div
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p> </o:p></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|