[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
dblumenthal at pir.org
Thu Feb 27 14:56:07 UTC 2014
I will add to Steve¹a narrative.
What became the EWG first was recommended by the multistakeholder Whois
Review Team, not the Board or the CEO. Its report went through the full
range of the usual public comment processes.
The ICANN Security and Stability Review Team, which I serve on, commented
and recommended a somewhat different approach from the WRT that would
require broader community involvement than in the WRT model. The EWG uses
the structure that we suggested. I¹ll grant you that the members were
appointed, but only for the most part after having responded to an open
call for volunteers. I know the members. Particularly with repect to a few
of them, any thought that the group is beholden to the CEO because he
appointed them just doesn¹t play.
EWG members represent a broad range of constituencies. They have posted
surveys, including a current one on proxy/privacy issues, held public
forums at two ICANN meetings, and issued an initial report that was open
to public comment. The final report also will be open for comment, and the
recommendations of the final final [sic] report then will be submitted to
a PDP Working Group. The PDP¹s conclusions will go through full comment
Sufficiently bottom up?
On 2/26/14, 6:31 PM, "Michel Gauthier" <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
>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
>>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?
More information about the discuss