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

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree Sam, and on R21 I must say I am deeply cynical.  AS a 
consultant, when I see recommendations for further work I tend to reject 
them out of hand, possibly too soon.  Nice to see your arguments.  On 
that one in particular, issues at ICANN tend to rise up and bite us in 
the nether regions, I dont think we need trend analysis to spot them.
On R22, we have a problem getting volunteers to do the work as it is.  
If I had to undergo some skills assessment in order to volunteer my time 
I am afraid I would not react well.
On R36 (and in some respects R22) training is an issue at ICANN but I 
did not find the Westlake recommendations very helpful in solving this 
problem.
cheers SP
On 2015-11-24 0:30, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> 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.
>