ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-council]


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

Re: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy recommendations

  • To: Milton Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] NCUC stmt on new gtld policy recommendations
  • From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:17:27 +0200

Milton

I will leave aside the issue I have with your tone and attitude on a public mailing list which I have addressed in a private email. I refer you instead to

Section 7 Part D of the GNSO's Policy Development Guidelines, noting in particular part iii which includes requests for a clear statement on how [a] constituency arrived at its position.

d. Collection of Information.

1. Constituency Statements. The Representatives will each be responsible for soliciting the position of their constituencies, at a minimum, and other comments as each Representative deems appropriate, regarding the issue under consideration. This position and other comments, as applicable, should be submitted in a formal statement to the task force chair (each, a "Constituency Statement") within thirty- five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. Every Constituency Statement shall include at least the following:

(i) If a Supermajority Vote was reached, a clear statement of the constituency's position on the issue;

(ii) If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions espoused by constituency members;

(iii) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position(s). Specifically, the statement should detail specific constituency meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views;

(iv) An analysis of how the issue would affect the constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency; and

(v) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy.

Whilst this discussion is about a constituency impact statement, one would have thought it entirely reasonable to ask the questions which have been posed. For my purposes, providing that information assists me greatly in the development of a robust Board Report. You should also refer in more detail to Section 11 Part c of the GNSO's policy development guidelines.

11. Council Report to the Board

The Staff Manager will be present at the final meeting of the Council, and will have five (5) calendar days after the meeting to incorporate the views of the Council into a report to be submitted to the Board (the "Board Report"). The Board Report must contain at least the following:

a. A clear statement of any Supermajority Vote recommendation of the Council;

b. If a Supermajority Vote was not reached, a clear statement of all positions held by Council members. Each statement should clearly indicate (i) the reasons underlying each position and (ii) the constituency(ies) that held the position;

c. An analysis of how the issue would affect each constituency, including any financial impact on the constituency;

d. An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy;

e. The advice of any outside advisors relied upon, which should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the advisor's (i) qualifications and relevant experience; and (ii) potential conflicts of interest;

f. The Final Report submitted to the Council; and

g. A copy of the minutes of the Council deliberation on the policy issue, including the all opinions expressed during such deliberation, accompanied by a description of who expressed such opinions.


If you have any further questions or any need of assistance, please don't hesitate to ask.


Liz





.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 14 Jun 2007, at 17:18, Milton Mueller wrote:

Mawaki, Robin: I would advise you not to bother to respond to these
kinds of provocations any more. If Chuck could debate you on substantive
grounds, he would. Obviously, he can't. If he can't persuade based on
actual law, logic, or real impacts on freedom of expression, he tries to
question the legitimacy of the constituency.


People in ICANN have been playing this game for years. It's sad, but
some people simply can't do any better.

Liz: It seems to me you need to publish the constituency statement as
it is, you have no authority to edit it or question it.

Chuck:
Our policy develoopment and statement development processes are
completely transparent. If you want to see how much time and effort --
and consultation of legal expertise -- went into the development of our
response to the gTLD report, you can review for your self the past seven
months of archived mailing list of our constituency.


Yes, seven months. Go ahead, knock yourself out:
http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/ncuc-discuss.html

Now, where can we see YOUR constituency's deliberations and how many
people actually participated in them? How many organizations from Asia,
Latin America, and Africa have actually written anything in any of your
policy discussions? (I know I will not get an answer to those
questions.)



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