ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[bc-gnso]


<<< 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 
</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.&nbsp; 
It has been a bad idea each time.&nbsp; 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" &lt;<a 
href="mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx";>michael@xxxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<br>
Date: Wed, January 05, 2011 3:20 pm<br>
To: &lt;<a href="mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx";>bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</a>&gt;<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. &nbsp;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. 
&nbsp;&nbsp;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>&nbsp;</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:&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" 
style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 115%;"><o:p>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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%;">&nbsp;<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>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div 
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;margin-left: 32pt; line-height: 
115%;"><o:p>&nbsp;</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.”&nbsp; 
<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;line-height: 
115%;"><o:p>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" 
style="font-size:12pt;margin-left: 32pt; line-height: 
115%;"><o:p>&nbsp;</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>&nbsp;</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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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%;">&nbsp;<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>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" 
style="font-size:12pt;margin-bottom: 12pt;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div><div 
class="MsoNormal" style="font-size:12pt;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy