[council] Comments on policy development recommendations
On recommendation 18: Individual registrants are lacking as one of the
stakeholder groups in this recommendation. While they are not
represented in the present DNSO, this is certainly not a reason not to
include them in recommendations for a future, improved ICANN.
Representation of individual registrants' interests could either happen
by creating a constituency consisting of existing consumer advocacy
groups (if you want, take the IPC as a model), or by creating a
constituency which actually tries to get individual registrants into the
Rec. 19: The Council should provide clear guidance whose decision the
addition of new stakeholder groups should be. In particular, it seems
questionable to me whether this decision should be left to existing
stakeholder groups who may perceive new stakeholders being added to the
structure as a danger for their own base of power and influence.
Rec. 22. I'd like to see the council make a much clearer recommendation
on who should participate in such groups. In particular, participation
should be possible for interested groups which operate outside the
constituency structure, but have a clear stake.
Rec. 24. Interim policy will only remain "interim" if its validity is
limited in time. I'd suggest that the council recommends that interim
policy shall not be applied for more than half a year, and that there
should be no more than two conecutive interim policies for any
particular area of policy-making.
Finally, one thing I'm missing in the recommendations is a General
Assembly. Of course, there are a number of roles one could imagine for
a GA. I suppose, however, that there are at least two functions any GA
could realistically fulfill: 1. Serve as a channel by which individuals
and parties not fitting into the constituency scheme can still
participate in policy-making. 2. Provide a forum for broad
inter-constituency exchange. Of course, the GA can only operate as such
a forum when constituencies are actually interested in using it.
For these reasons alone, the GA should neither be eliminated in the NC's
recommendations, nor should it be ignored. Instead, the council should
recommend that a GA should continue to exist in the gTLD policy-making
body; the GA's chairman should, ex officio, be a member of the Council
outlined in rec. 20; the GA should be entitled to send representatives
to the task forces outlined in rec. 22.
Many of the members of the GA will, most likely, also call for a
generally stronger involvement of the GA in the policy-making process.
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <email@example.com>