[PC-NCSG] New Member Policy Process Reflections

[Sam Lanfranco]

All on the Policy Committee,

It may be that I am not looking in the right places but I have a sense 
of an endemic problem in the policy discussions within ICANN. The 
problem leaves both ICANN and the multistakeholder process vulnerable 
from serious attack from outside, and of being marginalized, not in 
terms of presence but in terms of impact, on key issues.

Stakeholder policy discussions here appear good at identifying the" 
What" and the "Why" of policy issues and, for some more narrow areas, 
good at proposing solutions (the "How") that address the issues. 
However, in many cases the proposed processes for dealing with the "How" 
are neither subject to analysis of how they will work, nor if they will 
work. Frequently discussion focuses on a formalism involving stakeholder 
entitlements in the process (i.e., what committee to create and who will 
participate and how) rather than on an assessment of whether the 
approach will address the problem.

A case in point is the long running issue of .health and other regulated 
professions/products gTLDs. The "What" and "Why" of the issues are well 
known, but there has been little discussion around whether the 
existence, or non-existence of such gTLDs make an iota of difference, or 
whether any particular ownership or contract language between ICANN, 
registries, and registrars, is likely to seriously address the issues.

ALAC had recently proposed a moratorium on such gTLD strings. They had a 
lot of discussion of the "What" and the "Why", but again, no assessment 
of what is needed to address the problem, nor reflection on whether or 
not their position makes an iota of difference in light of the issues 
and behavior within the Internet ecosystem. Asking questions about the 
"How" tend to elicit little response.

In the end the policy positions frequently look more like posturing and 
positioning than like contributions to solutions. This leaves the NCSG 
community vulnerable to dismissive attack. It also probably also sends 
the wrong message to stakeholder groups, waiting for policy decisions 
here, when they should be pressing for policy on these issues elsewhere 
within the Internet Ecosystem, as well at their own national and 
regional levels.

I may be alone in this perception and these concerns but as a member of 
the Policy Committee I wanted to put them on the table.

Sam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141215/884848fb/attachment-0001.html>