[PC-NCSG] New Member Policy Process Reflections

[Stephanie Perrin]

I think you have raised an important point Amr, one which I am 
attempting to wrestle with right now in my writing.  This is the fact 
that engaging in ICANN, in the multi-stakeholder process, requires 
enormous amounts of dedication and work.  If you are not there to argue 
for your desired outcome in the PDPs, when the comment periods come out, 
etc etc, then you cannot really protest an outcome.  Only those with 
resources can participate for the years that it takes.  So managing an 
effective campaign to achieve an outcome requires long-haul 
perspectives, something that the ICC and business interests are well set 
up to achieve, but which has been a troubling weakness in civil society 
for decades.  Combine that with an altruistic view that we must be open 
and transparent (to the point of letting anyone join, not something the 
intellectual property constituency or the business group engage in) and 
the willingness to let every view be heard, it explains a lot of the 
inability to get traction on many issues.
We need more folks on the PDPs.  This is weekly heavy lifting, and we 
need more folks to sign up and help.
cheers Stephanie
On 2014-12-18, 3:28, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> I believe I understand what you're alluding to, but in case my 
> thoughts indicate otherwise, I would welcome any clarification you can 
> provide.
>
> I would say that identifying all three of the "What", the "Why" and 
> the "How" are not perfect within the gTLD policy development context 
> at ICANN. Perhaps in some instances, I would agree that this is more 
> true for the "How". However, I'm not sure how this makes the 
> multistakeholder process vulnerable. If you could give examples on how 
> you think this may happen, that'd be helpful.
>
> Identifying the "What" and the "Why" (according to my relatively 
> limited experience) is usually easier to achieve than identifying the 
> "How". When I say easier, I mean to say it costs significantly less in 
> terms of man-hours put into the effort. And although formalism and 
> stakeholder entitlement in the process is a frequent discussion (which 
> I believe it should continue to be), I wouldn't say that it trumps the 
> assessment, discussions and work put into the details of the solution 
> (the "How").
>
> Assuming they go through the appropriate process, gTLD policies aren't 
> just randomly conjured. They go through a painstakingly long process 
> that may take years from identification of the problem to 
> implementation of the solution. Because of the overwhelming effort and 
> investment of resources (human and other) required, there is a 
> relatively poor number of individuals and organisations that are 
> involved in this process. For those not involved, this was made rather 
> clear in the findings of the ATRT2 report.
>
> As far as .health is concerned, I believe the issues raised and the 
> concerns expressed are far too many to list in one email. I've been 
> paying rather close attention to them over the past couple of years 
> (for academic purposes), including articles posted in The Lancet and 
> the Journal of Medical Internet Research. A couple of those were also 
> attached to a limited public interest objection on the .health string 
> during the application process, which was overruled. From what I can 
> tell, a significant portion of the concerns are related to web 
> content, which is (and should not) be any of ICANN's business. Others 
> involve how the .health gTLD is being marketed, associating it with 
> trusted sources of health information; again..., perhaps questionable, 
> but none of ICANN's business.
>
> My best guess is that the real problem with the .health is the 
> disconnect between those raising the concerns, and the gTLD policy 
> development process. They are simply not nearly as involved as others, 
> and yet seek the authority to overrule those who have been. This is 
> somewhat consistent with the ATRT2 findings I mentioned above, and not 
> limited to the healthcare community. They started paying attention 
> late in the game, and still have not become as actively engaged as 
> they could be. I wouldn't put the blame on ICANN or the 
> multistakeholder processes it hosts. Again, I'm not saying they're 
> perfect, but to characterise them in a way you have is IMHO slightly 
> exaggerated.
>
> As far as ALAC are concerned, I am not informed enough on how much 
> work or reflection they've put into the issue of .health and other 
> strings involving "regulated" industries to comment on their insight 
> on the topic. However, I do think their inputs so far are very much 
> consistent with their positions on supporting policies that would 
> regulate anything that can perceivably be regulated. I have yet to 
> find a policy discussion involving ALAC in which I am in agreement 
> with them.
>
> Well..., those are my thoughts.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <Lanfran at yorku.ca 
> <mailto:Lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/ba69d37a/attachment.html>