[ncdnhc-discuss] Specific proposal

[DannyYounger at cs.com]

Alejandro,

You have requested specific proposals that actually relate to Domain Name 
policy.  I would like to expand upon a concept that you first presented in 
the Blueprint for Reform -- the idea of a "review" conducted by an entity 
independent of the GNSO that can proceed in parallel with a review instigated 
by the GNSO.  Rather than limiting this concept only to organizational 
review, the case can be made for expanding the approach to researching domain 
name policy issues.

Over the course of the last year we have been privy to two outstanding and 
comprehensive parallel reports, the NAIS study which was far more 
comprehensive than the ALSC report, and the recent SNAPNAMES submission to 
the Board which by comparison made a mockery of the work-product tendered by 
the Names Council Transfers Task Force.  In each case, the independent report 
was more thoroughly researched, substantially better documented, and 
ultimately added to significantly enhancing the Board's comprehension of the 
issues at hand.  

I would propose that on each occasion that the steering committee of the GNSO 
decides to convene a constituency-based Task Force to consider a domain name 
policy issue, that the At-Large community be tasked with providing a parallel 
report within the same timeframe.  This would allow for the Public Interest 
view to properly be articulated, and will afford an opportunity to the 
At-Large community to "prove" that they can make a substantial contribution.

Your Committee was instructed to ensure that the ongoing efforts at crafting 
a blueprint for ICANN reform include (a) workable mechanisms and procedures 
that enable meaningful opportunities for participation by the full range of 
Internet users, and (b) an appropriate role for those interests in ICANN's 
coordinating and management structures.  This proposal, to some degree, 
attends to those obligations.