[PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Recommendations R21, R22, R36

[Sam Lanfranco]

Thanks to Stephanie Perrin for the heads up on the three recommendations 
identified as difficult and where they are still looking for input.

  I will start with comments from a position of maximum naivety.  Each 
of the three recommendations appears to start from what appears to be a 
reasonable and "why", but goes to a "what" and a "how" that are 
problematic both with regard to implementation and outcomes.

Recommendation 21 (R21): That the GNSO Council should regularly 
undertake or commission analysis of trends in gTLDs in order to forecast 
likely requirements for policy and to ensure those affected are 
well-represented in the policy-making process.

?	R21: Ignoring for a minute what analytical framework would work here, 
it is unclear what is meant by a trend, and at what stage in the 
policy-making process of creating new gTLDs this analysis would occur. 
Is this talking about the terms of reference for a new round gTLDs? In 
that case there is no trend in gTLDs, but instead there are policy 
issues with regard to the terms of reference for the new round.

?	R21: If this refers to the flow of proposed new gTLDs after a new 
round has been initiated, then it is not clear what is meant by 
policy-process here. For issues that arise in the context of individual 
gTLD proposals, the proposed process would be a cumbersome, burdensome, 
and likely poor alternative to greater transparency and ease of comment 
option/discussion with regard to new gTLD applications.

?	R21: Ensuring that those affected are well represented would also be 
problematic. For .pharmacy it is relatively easy to engage the pharmacy 
community, but less so the broad consumer community. For .health it is 
not at all clear how the affected global health community would be "well 
represented" in the policy-making process.

Recommendation 22 (R22): That the GNSO Council develop a 
competency-based framework which its members should utilise to identify 
development needs and opportunities.

?	R22: The GNSO is an ICANN supporting organization dealing with 
policies for generic Top-Level Domains.  Leaving aside for a moment what 
is meant by "a competency-based framework", most all of the policy 
issues the GNSO has to deal with are tossed up within the ferment of the 
Internet ecosystem.  The GNSO is not an incubator with the luxury of 
generating its own policy projects independent of current context. While 
the GNSO has resource limitations with regard to the number of PDP?s it 
can handle, it does set priorities there, but it is not at all clear 
what is meant by GNSO "development needs and opportunities" in this 
recommendation.

Recommendation 36 (R36): That, when approving the formation of a PDP WG, 
the GNSO Council require that its membership represent as far as 
reasonably practical the geographic, cultural and gender diversity of 
the Internet as a whole. Additionally, that when approving GNSO Policy, 
the ICANN Board explicitly satisfy itself that the GNSO Council 
undertook these actions when approving the formation of a PDP WG.

?	R36: This diversity requirement recommendation faces multiple 
obstacles as proposed. PDP WGs need to remain manageable in terms of 
size. As well, there will be varying levels of constituency interest and 
engagement in the DPD process depending on the policy areas under 
development. Lastly, constituency volunteer participation (in contrast 
to contracted and non-contracted business interests) would be hard 
pressed to provide adequate diverse participation just for the sake of 
diversity and independent of the relevance of the particular PDP.

?	Adequate and diverse stakeholder engagement may be better served by 
enhanced transparency around pending policy issues, and promoting 
greater awareness and ease of engagement on the comments side of the PDP 
process.