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

[Milton L Mueller]

Hi, Mary:

You're right, in telecom regulation (which I've been familiar with in various countries) they often pose specific questions in their proposed rulemakings. And that doesn't stop anyone from saying whatever they want to say regardless! But it often helps them to frame and classify responses. In ICANN it is new. And based on some past experiences there may be a lack of trust in the staff to be neutral in the way they frame issues and ask questions. 

Another issue is that we can expect GNSO to ask us to document levels of support and "participation" in our constituency statements. This is problematic because it is based on the premise that most members have nothing more important to do than follow the ins and outs of every single ICANN proceeding. My assumption has always been that you elect Councilors to do most of the work, and weigh in when you have a special interest or special knowledge about a situation. In the bad old days, when the precursor to the NCUC had a dysfunctional constitution, we used to have a vote of the entire membership before our Councillors could take a position on anything. Which usually meant, no timely position. Too much traffic on the list, people couldn't keep up with it.

--M

________________________________

From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 2:55 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [council] Constituency input sought on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP

 

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/f30b12b9/attachment.html>