[RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Plenary Call #4 - Action Items/Decisions Reached

[Alan Greenberg]

Hi Lili,

The Review Team can make any recommendations it 
likes, but the issue is really that we have an 
obligation (in my mind) to make recommendations 
that can be implemented and have a reasonable chance of addressing an issue.

I agree we can make recommendations in respect to 
policy. We certainly can recommend to the Board 
that it initiate a GNSO Policy Process (which it 
in fact already has). We also can recommend that 
the Board suggest certain directions to the GNSO, 
but it is then completely up to the GNSO on how 
it treats these suggestions, and in fact, the 
GNSO will normally simply incorporate these 
issues into the PDP WG Charter for consideration 
of the WG. Any resultant policy is wholly developed by the PDP WG.

I was a member of the ATRT2 RT, and we struggled 
with whether we can make recommendations to parts 
of ICANN other than the Board. We ultimately 
decided we could using several constructs.

1. We used wording such as "ATRT2 recommends that 
the Board work jointly with the GAC, through the 
Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working 
Group (BGRI working group), to consider....". 
These recommendation were effective aimed at the 
GAC, but the GBRI was the mechanism by which the 
Board could introduce them. Butall we could ask 
is that the ideas be considered, as the Board was 
not empowered to guarantee implementation.

2. Wording "The Board should work with the GNSO 
and the wider ICANN community to develop 
methodologies and tools to allow the GNSO policy 
development processes to utilize volunteer time 
more effectively...." and other similar intents. 
Here there was no existing mechanism, so we 
simply said that the Board should "work with the 
GNSO". Results were rather spotty.

3. In one case, we made a direct recommendation 
"The GAC, in conjunction with the GNSO, must 
develop methodologies to ensure that GAC and 
government input is provided to ICANN policy 
development processes and that the GAC has 
effective opportunities to provide input and 
guidance on draft policy development outcomes." 
Clearly all the Board could do was forward this to the applicable bodies.

So in short, we can recommend what we wish. But 
the Board can only take effective action if it 
has the mandate to do so, and that is severely 
limited in the case of gTLD Policy. In relation 
to WHOIS, the Board has already initiated a GNSO 
PDP to review all aspects of WHOIS with the aim 
of fixing it or replacing it. In my mind, that 
puts it in a weak position to request further policy action at this point.

To directly answer your question on how the RT 
could make recommendations without respect to 
policy, many of the WHOIS1-RT recommendations 
were not in regard to gTLD policy but rather how 
the ICANN Board and the ICANN Organization (to 
use the current term) should implement the 
existing policy. As well, ICANN was at that point 
in a position to bilaterally negotiate with 
registrars on developing a new Registrar 
Accreditation Agreement and that effectively 
implemented what might otherwise have been construed as policy.

Alan




At 13/08/2017 10:14 AM, SUN Lili wrote:

>Dear Chris and Team Members,
>
>I remembered that during last plenary call, Chris had two comments:
>1.       The ICANN Board cannot intervene in the GNSO PDP.
>2.       The Review Team cannot make recommendations in respect to policy.
>
>For the first point, it’s easy to understand, 
>the PDP should be independent as much as 
>possible in the process. However, for the second 
>one, I still have doubts on this. To my 
>understanding, WHOIS is policy, how could the 
>Review Team make recommendations without respect 
>to policy? I believe this is of high relevant to 
>the scope of the review, and looking forward to your kind clarification.
>
>Thanks and regards,
>Lili