[council] ICANN's Legislative/Regulatory Tracker -- Recommended Improvements

[Ayden Férdeline]

Thanks, Keith.

To kick off this discussion, broadly there are three areas where I would like to see improvements to this document.

Firstly, I'd like to see a new planning stage altogether. This should see a proper regulatory impact assessment carried out, so we can understand the intended rationale for a law/regulation/directive, specific extracts of the proposed text that could have implications on activities within ICANN's remit, and perhaps most importantly, the document should outline concretely what implications are anticipated for ICANN. A roadmap or timeline should be included so we understand how imminent the law/regulation/directive is and when we need to take action.

The current, crowdsourced approach where the community is expected to identify errors and omissions in the document is inappropriate. If ICANN is a professional organization then its professional staff should be monitoring the regulatory landscape within which we operate.

Then, I'd like to see a new stage or chapter to the report outlining the response being taken. So, once a law/regulation/directive is here and we've identified we need to take action and we know when enforcement begins, the report should offer a detailed analysis that outlines more specifically what options the GNSO Council or other parties could consider taking to ensure legal compliance.

Third, once a law/regulation/directive is in place and we have taken actions to comply with it, ICANN should monitor 1) the impact the law/regulation/directive has had as it relates to ICANN's remit, 2) evaluate how successful/unsuccessful our response was, and 3) if necessary and only with extensive community consultation first feed back to lawmakers if there has been a mismatch between their intended rationale for a law/regulation/directive and reality.

There are two other characteristics that I consider to be very important for this tracker.

It should use clear, succinct, and plain language, regardless of the issue's complexity.

It must be accurate and kept up to date, always based upon the latest information. In order for this resource to be useful it should not be circulated until ICANN has verified that it transports the correct and necessary messages.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 8:35 PM, Drazek, Keith via council <council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:

> Ayden, Darcy, Erika, Flip, Michele, Phillipe and Tatiana:
>
> During our GNSO Working Session in Kobe, the seven of you volunteered to help develop GNSO Council recommendations for improvements to ICANN’s current Legislative/Regulatory tracking effort.
>
> As we discussed, ICANN’s work in this area is relatively new and still evolving, and we have an opportunity to engage with Theresa’s group to help shape their approach to ensure it is applicable to our policy work and process management responsibilities. While their work product is currently a spreadsheet, I recall we agreed it needs to go much deeper in analysis and demonstrate a predictive capability for where future or existing regulations impact GNSO policies, in effect now or under future development.
>
> Please work together and with Staff to help kick off this important and timely work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Keith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190406/ebab8c2e/attachment.html>