[bc-gnso] policy docs for today's BC Member call

Thu Jun 6 14:15:44 UTC 2013

Here's background for policy topics on today's call.

Recently submitted public comments from the BC:
Comments on GAC Safeguard Advice for new gTLDs<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20GAC%20Advice%20for%20new%20gTLDs%20FINAL[4].pdf>
BC Comments FY14 Draft Operating Plan and Budget<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20FY2014%20ICANN%20Budget.pdf>
BC Comments on Proposed Final 2013 RAA<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20final%202013%20RAA%20[FINAL].pdf>

Draft BC comments on final Registry Agreement (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm>)
Elisa Cooper's latest draft is attached
This draft is based on BC's previous comments in Mar-2013 (link<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20new%20gTLD%20Registry%20Agreement%20FINAL.pdf>)
Should we request community input on contract changes arising from new registry services?
This comment period closes 11-Jun

Draft BC comments to Accountability & Transparency Review Team
Public comment page is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm>.
The document with questions we want to address is here<http://www.icann.org/about/aoc-review/atrt/community-questions-02apr13-en.pdf>.
This comment period closes 9-Jun
During the 22-May call we suggested 4 areas where the BC should comment:

  1.  GAC's role in ICANN
  2.  Who and how to define "public interest" for ICANN purposes
  3.  Policy vs Implementation  (see BC Comment on Policy vs Implementatio<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20Policy%20vs%20Implementation%20[FINAL].pdf>n, Mar-2013)
  4.  Problems/questions with Volunteer selection process

Volunteers included Stephane Van Gelder, Zahid Jamil, and Marilyn Cade.  Below are draft comments received so far.

Steve DelBianco draft for 2) Who and how to define "public interest" for ICANN purposes.
The ATRT is to assess whether ICANN is accountable to the global "public interest" as required by the Affirmation of Commitments. When signing the Affirmation in 2009, Lawrence Strickling, Administrator of the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration said, "this framework puts the public interest front and center and it establishes processes for stakeholders around the world to review ICANN's performance."

But until the ICANN community comes together on what 'public interest' means, we are flying blind in our efforts to meet this key imperative. Leaving the term 'public interest' undefined leaves the floor open to conflicting and competing interpretations that serve the particular interests of ICANN stakeholders.

The BC has previously recommended a definition for public interest that is limited to the scope of ICANN's mission. Namely, to ensure the availability and integrity of registration and resolution services. But it is not for the BC or the ATRT to define public interest for iCANN. The definition should be derived through a process open to Internet stakeholders.

ICANN management have already taken steps in this direction, launching a project under the CEO's "Affirmation of Purpose" objective. Sally Costerton was assigned the goal to "Co-create clear, shared definition of the public interest." It is not clear how management would involve the community to "co-create" the definition, so the ATRT should recommend a process and guidelines to define public interest for ICANN purposes.

Stephane Van Gelder's draft for 3) Policy vs Implementation:
The policy versus implementation debate can only be settled by having a clear definition of each, and by having clear guidelines as to when the question should be asked and what kind of answer we are looking for.
So far, the debate has clearly at times been used to obfuscate the real issue and simply attempt to get the outcome wanted by specific individuals or groups. This is a short term view that does not do justice to the multistakeholder model.

The BC is part of the GNSO. As such, it supports the model of having an SO in charge of defining policy for generic Top Level Domains, with groups such as our constituency able to actively participate. This work of developing policy, which is then managed by the GNSO Council, is crucial to ICANN's function as technical coordinator for the Internet's naming and addressing system. It is crucial to develop policy, but also to implement policy.

If we as a community do not know where one stops and the other begins, we run the risk of mismanaging the policy development process and of not seeing policies implemented in the way they were designed to be by the people who took the time to develop them. The BC therefore suggests that clear guidelines be set-up on what constitutes policy implementation. This is the important step, as there are already extensive rules and procedures on policy development at GNSO level.

[Addition by Steve DelBianco]
In accord with Affirmation paragraph 9.1, the ATRT poses questions about whether ICANN decisions are supported by the Internet community, and about the effectiveness of the Policy Development Process. (questions 12-16).  The ATRT seeks specific examples for each of these questions, and the BC suggests that Strawman implementation solutions are a useful example to consider.

The BC proposed that implementation decisions imposing material new obligations should be considered policy.  Using the BC’s recommended distinction of whether “material new obligations” would be created, here’s how we saw the Strawman solutions breaking down between policy and implementation:  (include text of our Mar-2013 comments)

Stephane Van Gelder's draft for 4) Problems/questions with Volunteer selection process
The ATRT is a good example of effective volunteer selection by the respective groups that make up the ICANN Community. However, the BC is concerned at what appears to be a developing trend for top-down decisions on who can participate in volunteer groups.

Taking the ATRT as an example, the selection process could be tweaked so that it is fully carried out at AC or SO level and does not require final selection by the Chairman of the Board or the Chairman of the GAC. There are reasons rooted within the original AOC text for this to be the case as far as the ATRT goes, and the BC understands that.

However, there are many other volunteer groups where the AOC has no bearing on the way volunteers are chosen, and yet there remains a top down approach with either the Board or ICANN Staff presiding over selections. This tends to lead to situations of under-representation by some groups, and the BC has suffered from this in the past. We would suggest that as much as possible be done to keep the volunteer group selection process as open and inclusive of all ICANN community groups as possible.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130606/c929629d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BC Comments - Proposed Final New gTLD RegistryAgreement - 5_30_13[1].doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 39424 bytes
Desc: BC Comments - Proposed Final New gTLD RegistryAgreement - 5_30_13[1].doc
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130606/c929629d/BCComments-ProposedFinalNewgTLDRegistryAgreement-5_30_131.doc>