[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
Shatan, Gregory S.
GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Thu Feb 27 01:18:11 UTC 2014
The Mandate of the EWG was as follows:
A Board-directed Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) policy development process (PDP) is expected to follow the work of the EWG to evaluate the policy implications of the EWG's recommendations. The EWG's objectives are to 1) define the purpose of collecting and maintaining gTLD registration data, and consider how to safeguard the data, and 2) provide a proposed model for managing gTLD directory services that addresses related data accuracy and access issues, while taking into account safeguards for protecting data. The EWG will be informed by Internet stakeholders' activities, and the extensive work of the GNSO work over the last decade.
So, first, the EWG itself was composed of members of the community, in many cases individuals active in various stakeholder groups, who had particular experience and or expertise that would be valuable to the EWG. An online questionnaire was available for user input, and then there was an open meeting at ICANN Durban. The EWG has put out an initial report which has been subject to Public Comment. And as the mandate stated, a PDP will follow, i.e., the formation of a multistakeholder, bottom-up, consensus driven Working Group to carry on the work of the EWG.
So, there is plenty of community, stakeholder and user involvement in this EWG. And of course, the reason that Steve cited a Board-initiated group was based on the question he was responding to. There are plenty of times where work is initiated by groups other than the Board.
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Michel Gauthier
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6:32 PM
To: Steve Crocker; Avri Doria
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
At 20:23 26/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote:
>Speaking as chair of ICANN's Board of Directors, I can say strongly
>that we try very hard to avoid "figuring out the right thing" and
>making a unilateral decision even though the Board is populated with a
>number of people who are deeply knowledgeable in the various subject
>matters. Instead, on those occasions where the community has not come
>up with something sufficient to deal with an issue, we will try to
>stimulate additional and alternative methods of generating good ideas.
>This is the approach we took for Whois a little over a year ago. The
>Expert Working Group -- see
>details -- was created as a result of the Board directing the CEO to
>develop a fresh approach. The results of that working group will be
>used to stimulate community review and consensus.
> > The point is not that the community is always able to make the
> decision, but in a bottom-up process, they should always have first call.
>Yep. Again, thanks
I am lost. You both describe a process where decision and initiative should be with users and it is not while saying it is?
Steve: In the described case, the initative comes crom the board.
which creats an expert group. Then the board directs the CEO. where is the bottom-up initative?
Avri: if people are not interested why the Board would take a decision?
Or it means that ICANN has its own M$ 78 policy. What is ICANN doing which is worth several Wikimedia equvalents for the world?
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
More information about the discuss