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

[Carlton Samuels]

I share Alan's views on all the substantive points, including what amounts
to a framework and the rationale for the RT's output.

-Carlton


==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment &
Turnaround*
=============================

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt/attachments/20170814/17f5141e/attachment.html>