Suggested agenda topics for the ALAC/NCSG meeting in Prague?
william.drake at UZH.CH
Wed Jun 6 14:04:11 CEST 2012
On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:08 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
> One thing that has increasingly bothered me - connected with the poor communications and outreach ICANN did for the new gTLD program rollout - is the still-substantial misunderstanding over IDNs, especially in regions such as Asia. I'd be surprised (and pleasantly so) if there is a large number of applications for new IDN-based gTLDs when Reveal Day rolls around next week. If there isn't, or even if there is, perhaps NCSG & ALAC could coordinate on efforts to increase ICANN's commitment and attention to users in those parts of the world that are likely to be heavily reliant on IDNs for Internet access and participation.
The IDN piece certainly fits squarely within the Outreach discussion that's been percolating unevenly in different parts of ICANN (and remains the source of a disagreement between us and CSG…which probably we should talk about on the call tonight). And if the Reveal shows, to probably nobody's surprise, that the overwhelming majority of apps are from the OECD region and especially NA, that would seem to lend weight to any joint statements etc in this arena. But of course I'm biased; having prattled on for four years about globalization and outreach to developing countries, it's easy for me to agree these two items should be discussed with ALAC and (yet again) the board. It'd be good to hear from others if they have more narrowly GNSO-oriented rather than ICANN-wide items they'd like to discuss?
On Jun 5, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> The paper, titled "Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected" (and generally referred to internally as "R3") can be found in its current form at the At-Large Wiki...As co-chair of the ALAC working group that produced the paper and one of its co-authors (which include an ex-GAC member and ex-Board member), I'm proud of this work and more than happy to have it as part of the NCSG/ALAC agenda in Prague should that be desired.
Thanks Evan, some stuff in here that resonates with NC discussions over the years. Certainly it's easy for some of us to agree that ICANN should develop a clear concept of what the global public interest means in local context; that there should be a better balance between stakeholder interests; that there should be better intra-organizational governance; and that there should be in general a more clueful engagement with the shifting geopolitics around Internet governance.
As to your recommendations, asking for publication of its appraisal of the geopolitical landscape in the SP is fine…we dwelt on the need for more transparency in this regard in our SJ board meeting. Ditto having staff focused on more effective interaction with other international institutions and processes, and non-boardie participation in the Global Relationships Committee. These tie in with the previously discussed items and I at least would be happy to see some joint initiatives along these lines.
But depending on what "involvement in policy formation" is intended to mean, I suspect you're not going to find a great deal of NC support for the suggestion that ALAC and GAC's roles should be elevated to something beyond advisory. Personally, I'd be happy if GAC were to figure out a way to liaise and provide inputs more effectively and early with the GNSO, but making it more than advisory…yikes. And reorganizing the roles and relationships of SO/ACs again also seems like a road to hell, at least to me. As for making the Ombsbuddy the Independent Objector…?
Would be good to hear from some members on these issues….
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ncuc-discuss