| Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25.10.2012 | Community Input and Advice Process | In Progress - Olivier Crépin-Leblond to confirm the lead author. | TBC | TBC | TBC | TBC | TBC | TBC | TBC | TBCAdopted | Alan Greenberg (NARALO) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Margie Milam margie.milam@icann.org | TBCAL/ALAC/ST/1012/2 |
| Comment/Reply Periods (*) | Important Information Links | |||
| Comment Open: | 24 September 2012 | |||
| Comment Close: | 25 October 2012 | |||
| Close Time (UTC): | 23:59 UTC | Public Comment Announcement | ||
| Reply Open: | 26 October 2012 | To Submit Your Comments (Forum) | ||
| Reply Close: | 14 November 2012 | View Comments Submitted | ||
| Close Time (UTC): | 23:59 UTC | Report of Public Comments | ||
| Brief Overview | ||||
| Originating Organization: | ICANN Policy Department | |||
| Categories/Tags: |
| |||
| Purpose (Brief): | This discussion document is posted at the request of the Board Governance Committee to solicit views from the ICANN community on ways to enhance the process by which the Board seeks advice from the ICANN community beyond the traditional public comment process. This issue stems from the work undertaken by Staff in fulfillment of recommendation No. 6 from the Accountability and Transparency Review Team, and highlights an area where improvements can lead to predictability and consistency for future Board actions. A session is scheduled in Toronto to explore this important issue further. | |||
| Current Status: | This document is posted for discussion purposes at the Toronto Meeting. | |||
| Next Steps: | Upon closing of the public comment forum, Staff will post a summary of community input received in Toronto and in this public comment forum. Staff expects to develop a proposal for a streamlined process to be used for the Community Input and Advice Function, for further consideration by theICANN Community. | |||
| Staff Contact: | Margie Milam | Email: | margie.milam@icann.org | |
| Detailed Information | ||||
| Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose | ||||
In fulfillment of Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) Recommendation No. 6, Staff has identified topics that are subject to formal policy development processes, and those that are generally within the ICANN Board level Organizational Administration Function. While Recommendation 6 has been completed, the work performed identified an area in which improvement is required – how the Board obtains the advice that it needs from the ICANN community beyond the traditional public comment process. The document posted for public comment is intended to guide discussions in Toronto on enhancing the process by which the ICANN Board seeks advice from the community on topics that are not subject to formal policy development processes. It is hoped that these discussions could lead to a consistent and predictable process to be adopted by the ICANN Board for such inquiries. | ||||
| Section II: Background | ||||
ATRT Recommendation No. 6. States that: In fulfillment of this Recommendation No. 6, a document was produced that specifically set forth the topics that are subject to policy development processes, and those that are generally within the ICANN Board level Organizational Administration Function. While Recommendation 6 has been completed, the work performed identified an area in which improvement is required – how the Board obtains the advice that it needs from the ICANN community beyond the traditional public comment process. Recently, issues have surfaced where the Board has sought in-depth input or advice from the community, and has specifically requested portions of the community to come together for that purpose. Through the completion of this work, the BGC identified an area where process improvement will benefit the ICANNcommunity, namely, how the Board seeks community input and advice outside of the formal policy development processes. A brief discussion of some of the hallmarks of this "Community Input & Advice Process" is described in the document posted for public comment. As seen in the rise of cross-community working groups on issues such applicant support in the New gTLD Program, or the Implementation Recommendations Team providing expert guidance on trademark protections, having well-defined mechanisms to provide input and guidance to the Board is necessary. In Toronto, a working session is scheduled to begin discussions on whether such a mechanism should be formalized to allow for clear understanding of the consultation mechanisms and the issues for which it is helpful to be invoked. | ||||
| Section III: Document and Resource Links | ||||
| ||||
| Section IV: Additional Information | ||||
| ||||
(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
...
FINAL DRAFT
Please click here to download a copy of the final version.
|
Draft comment created by Alan Greenberg,
...
18 October
...
2012
PDF Version
Questions posed:
...
The STI was not a cross-community effort. It was a GNSO group created at the request of the Board (gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.pdf) – one of those with a ridiculously short deadline and the clear threat of unilateral Board action. As per normal GNSO practice, since the ALAC had a Liaison working with Council, At-Large was given the opportunity to participate in the STI and was allocated two seats, the same as several other SGs and Constituencies. During At the Council meeting that created the STI Review Team, that was reduced to just one At-Large representative since a) it reflected At-Large participation on the Council (presumably referring to the number of seats occupied) and b) the letter was directed at the GNSO Council and At-Large is very last moment, Council unilaterally reduced At-Large participation to one member and one non-speaking alternate largely on the grounds that the At-Large was not part of the GNSO . This amendment was accepted as being “friendly”. At-Large was allowed a non-speaking Alternate as were the other groupsand the Liaison was not a full Council member. So the STI was FAR from a cross-community effort. That being said, once the group was formed, even with its restricted participation, the At-Large representatives were both active and effective in getting the group to reach consensus and there was certainly no discernible negative feelings to the At-Large participants within the group. It must be noted that this attitude toward At-Large had not been seen before this occurrence, or since – a very good thing.
...