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

[Sam Lanfranco]

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.