-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi,

That is what I believe the Board is trying to change by sending things
back when it is apparent that we did not take everything into account. 
Somethings that is happeng more and more and something that is being
accommodated in the PDP process.  Just because we have a good process
does not mean we always do a  good job of taking all issues into
account.  Often the moneyed SGs, 3 out 4 of them, often cooperate to
force certain issues down to the advantage of their profits.  So
something has to happen to bring them into the open and get
remaining/resulting issues solved by the same process.  I think all
recommendations have to come from the GNSO, but I do not believe we
always get it right the first time.

Also the Implementation teams the are being added to the process will
have a role in this by standing watch over those dong the implementation
and ringing the bell whenever something starts to go down the ad hoc
staff-decided policy route.

As for serving the  Global Public Policy, I see it as necessary duty for
ICANN and I see it as what results from the policy process when it is
properly done, including cycling back through the GNSO when we don't do
the job as well as we should and neglect to take all interests into
account.  I would hate for NCSG to become the SG most known for being
against global public policy.  What the entire process is geared to is
producing a result that is in the global public policy interest on
gTLDS  as understood by the ICANN SOAC community and as recommended by
the GNSO and executed by Staff under supervision of an implementation team.

avri


On 12-May-15 23:22, Robin Gross wrote:
> Indeed it does seem that in reality we have two different policy development processes that sit on
top of each other for GTLD policy.  There is the GNSO developed policy
pursuant to Annex A of ICANN's bylaws, and then there is the board-staff
developed policy based on what they unilaterally decide is "in the
public interest".  Just slap on the label of Public Interest Commitments
on them, and voila, an entirely separate set of policy requirements to
sit on top of the GNSOs (and over-ride GNSO policy in some cases).
>
> After all, who can be against The Public Interest?   It would seem
this is one place where ICANN's staff-board is able to circumvent
bottom-up policy development processes and it is unclear where the
authority to do this comes from since GNSO policy is supposed to be
developed pursuant to Annex A of ICANN's bylaws.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On May 12, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> You mean as issues that the GNSO process did not deal with
adequately and
>>> are therefore a good reason for sending a recommendation back to the
>>> GNSO for further work?
>>
>> No, I mean as yet another example of altering agreed policy on the
fly in response to demands by privileged interest groups (GAC,
trademark) who could never get their views accepted in a consensus process.
>>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVUuIFAAoJEOo+L8tCe36Hc8MH/j5vVIulp+L0CnFz7CbfGVYQ
AKlbTslDmnwlSTzlVAEURe9Wc+3eLKOpyWMBJIPgq1Zxd5MCS4J7hlPpbRAtJ3qb
KD44Ge9YSLDuY/1ygsjJ57cmPDuWEU5QtOYI98vR9jwQ6BNNuxlknnpG5MJxOFwt
rz+7nV0Q2pzF7uTQPG+LdtkfCgR3TYej5tl7C9uqvopXNdnNl7C56SvNz83Wb1Tr
gSgfDrOb2B69p00A2xUzaqrWrUgnMYSXX+psjx62D/Avx/ZQ4rPY6BS4OM5MISso
B52lcJMC5MUelhDVer61DCXTc0JwuslN7zWty4bArs8kTcWts+9ebL8MInffkTY=
=CHVS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com