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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008
2:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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,
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
Email: [log in to unmask]
Phone:
1-603-513-5143
Selected
writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>> Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]>
Date: September 5,
2008 2:26:24 AM PDT
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
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.
The
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Set A PDP workspace is at:
The deadline for submission
of the constituency statements is 3 October 2008.
Constituency
statements should be submitted to the working group list:
<[log in to unmask]>
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