[PC-NCSG] Auctions proceeds Drafting will start soon....

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:03 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As I have argued it is the BUMP (bottom up multistakeholder process)
> that allows us to discover/identify what is in the GPI that is within
> the ICANN's mission.  So while we start out from so called subjective
> input (and how can public interest not be subjective - as it is about
> subjects), look for reasons and come to consensus on what we will treat
> as ICANN view on the GPI.
> 
> This is not a missue of the term in my opinion, but rather us doing the
> work that needs to be done.  It is an ICANN requirement to serve the BPI
> within ICANN's mission constraints.

That all sounds pretty good to me. But I guess where I would go with this is that ICANN, in its role in serving the GPI, provides a platform that empowers the ?BUMP? to take place and develop specifically scoped consensus policies based on special interests of the different stakeholders ? represented in the BUMP. I?m still having trouble understanding why the BUMP needs to be used to develop a framework or specific standards on what ICANN?s version of the GPI is, which could be acted upon using a top-down approach (or perhaps just restrict what the bottom-up can do).

I don?t mean to appear stubborn, and would welcome being convinced that there are aspects of this that I am not considering (there very well may be). However, having gone over this again and again for quite some time now, I still fail to see the overall added value in going through with this exercise.

> The problem with GNSO WGs, is that the GNSO can ignore and pervert the
> outcome.

I don?t recall this happening in my short time participating in GNSO WGs. In my limited experience, I believe that the GNSO council has adopted inappropriate positions such as when it was asked to advise on adding spec 13 to the RA. If that is an example of what you are referring to, then sure?, you have a point. Not sure that multiple SOs/ACs chartering a CCWG to develop the new gTLD AG way back would have changed the outcome on this, when the ICANN board asked the g-council for advice.

>  And even after we reach an outcome, we have all the rest of
> the community that feels left out.  Just because we think we are so very
> open, does not mean that others accept that.

That?s a good point.

> and in how many GNSO WGS have we seen the none GNSO people marginalized.  It happens all the time.

Does it? The most consistent non-GNSO folks to participate in GNSO WGs seem to be from At-Large. Their input never seems to be marginalised as far as I can tell. I suspect that there may be instances when GNSO WG members from At-Large may be more likely to be marginalised by ALAC than by the GNSO.

> I hear that sometimes even we are marginalized by the dominant
> commercial interests.

Again?, as relatively limited as my experience is with GNSO WGs, I have never felt marginalised. Sure?, there are times when my position might have conflicted with the majority, but even in those circumstances, I can?t in honesty say that anyone marginalised my input. It?s more likely that compromises on both sides of an argument are made, which is sometimes necessary to achieve consensus. Of course, if I am a participant in a CCWG, that may not necessarily be the case.

On rare occasions, such as the translation/transliteration PDP, commercial interests are the ones who lack the dominance. This was an interesting GNSO PDP WG, which was dominated by members from NCSG, SSAC and a number of members not affiliated with any ICANN SO/AC. The IPC submitted a minority statement in this PDP WG?s final report.

> I do not see trusting the use of the Auction proceeds to commercial interest ad being in any way consistent the GPI.

Ha!! I completely agree!! And I value both my ability and yours to express that belief without compromise. That?s pretty much my point!! :)

Thanks.

Amr