Fwd: [council] Constituency input sought on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP

[Mary Wong]

Hi Robin and everyone,

I agree that this practice can raise exactly those issues of concern
you pointed out (and for the reasons you highlighted). On the other
hand, I imagine that proponents of the template would argue that the
efficiency and global community input achievable potentially with this
practice may outweigh any risks of manipulation by interested parties.

It may be useful to get more background regarding this practice,
particularly given that many government and international consultations
(e.g. on proposed legislative reform) tend to take the form of
consultation papers that reflect a similar template, i.e. specific
questions that are drafted and posed by the person/entity/department
circulating the document, thereby enabling the management and
circumscribing of full debates. Perhaps you, Carlos, Milton, Norbert or
others who know more about the history and practices of ICANN
input-seeking can chime in?

For instance, how has the process been managed in the past (e.g., were
specific questions posed, who drafted them and did non-ICANN personnel
and various constituencies have any drafting role)? Also, how were the
comments collected and publicized (e.g., were they all made public in
full, and was it possible to include additional comments outside the
boundaries set by the questions)?

Cheers
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/profs/wong.htm
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


>>> Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> 9/8/2008 9:35 AM >>>
ICANN is now sending out templates for constituency input.   It used to
be the case that a constituency could express its own concerns in its
own constituency statement.  But this new proposed format leaves
significant opportunity to manage policy debate by asking some things,
but not other things.  And of course the way in which the questions are
worded in the template can encourage a specific perspective that the
constituency may not share.    So this new template for constituency
input is an example in which the GNSO can be more easily "managed" by
ICANN and working group chairs...... concerning.

Best,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:



From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: September 5, 2008 2:26:24 AM PDT
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] Constituency  input sought on the Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy Set A PDP


Dear All,

Each constituency is invited to provide input to the Inter-Registrar
Transfer Policy Set A PDP.

Please use the attached template, which can also be directly viewed on
the Wiki, when providing constituency input.
https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?template_for_constituency_statements_pdp_irtp_part_a


The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP workspace is at:
https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_pdp_wg_pdp_jun08


The deadline for submission of the constituency statements is 3 October
2008.
https://st.icann.org/irtp_jun08_pdp-wg/index.cgi?irtp_part_a_draft_working_group_timetable


Constituency statements should be submitted to the working group list:
<gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08 at icann.org> NLT COB on 3 October 2008.

Marika Konings, Policy Director, is the ICANN staff person supporting
the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP.

Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080911/0fcd10c8/attachment.html>