[PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Recommendations R21, R22, R36
Sam Lanfranco
lanfran
Tue Nov 24 19:28:31 EET 2015
Policy colleagues,
Following my longer analytical comments with regard to Westlake
Recommendations 21, 22, and 36, here are recommendations I toss on the
table.
R21 instructs the GNSO to analyze trends in gTLDs, forecast likely
requirements for policy, and ensure those affected are well-represented
in the policy-making process.
R22 instructs the GNSO Council develop a competency-based framework to
identify development needs and opportunities.
R36 instructs the GNSO to pursue PDP WG efforts that include
participation diversity, to the satisfaction of the ICANN Board.
While the goals are laudable; each recommendation is fraught with
difficulties. Here are my opening suggestions for a NCSG position and
response:
--------------------------------
RE R36: Greater participatory diversity is a broadly held ICANN and NCSG
objective, with movement in that direction. However, it cannot be
mandated, and should not be used by the Board to accept or reject PRP
output, especially in the absence of agreed criteria for the evaluation
of diversity in individual PDP WGs.
My Recommendation: R36 be recast as a statement of principle with
respect to greater diversity in the policy-making process, not tie it
exclusively to the composition of the PDP WGs, and not give the Board
power to reject PDP output on the grounds of lack of diversity in the
composition of the PDP WGs.
GNSO composition of particular PDP WGs is driven by stakeholder group
interest and stakeholder capacity. The contracted and non-contracted
business side, and the GAC have dedicated resources for participation.
The non-profit, civil society and at large stakeholder groups rely
mainly on volunteer labour and constrained resources. While the
non-profit, civil society and at large stakeholder groups work to
recruit wider participation and greater diversity, they can also be more
active in promoting more diverse engagement by affected communities in
individual PDP policy-making processes beyond PDP membership (e.g.
comments processes)
-----------------------
RE R21: Representation/participation by those affected by policy is at
the core of the multistakeholder model. To a large extent that is
already done. To augment representation greater clarity is needed with
regard to what is meant by forecasting trends in gTLDs and policy
requirements. PDP WGs tend to be generated mainly by DNS demands and not
by stakeholder wish lists.
My Recommendation: R21 be recast as a request to review the history of
PDP WGs to capture lessons learned about issue selection and PDP WG
engagement dynamics, lessons useful for future PDP WGs and for greater
stakeholder engagement in policy-making.
--------------------
RE R22: There is ambiguity and a lack of clarity with regard to what is
meant by ?a competency-based framework to identify development needs and
opportunities.?. Progress in the areas identified in R21 & R36 would
cover the much of the intent of this recommendation with regard to
policy-making. Time and effort would be better spent dealing with
revised versions of R21 and R36.
My Recommendation: R22 be seen as redundant and be dropped from the list
of recommendations.
------------------------
Sam L.
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list