RE: [nc-str] Comments on ALSC discussion paper
Philip
Some
initial comments on behalf of the ISPCP follow.
Best
Regards to all for the New Year
Tony
-------------------------
1.
Efficacy of policy making within the DNSO
(i)
Similar to the view expressed by the BC, it would appear premature to rate the
degree of formal interaction between stakeholders as low. So much of the
detailed arrangements remain unclear it would be prudent to adopt the category
'undetermined at this stage'.
(ii) Quantity of predicted unique issues of a new SO outside the competence of DNSO versus issues within competence of DNSO. - Offer total support for the comment that 'there will be a high overlap with the DNSO'. If not then this new arrangement won't be working! (iii) Mechanisms for cross SO communication - This is an issue that should demand priority attention. Whilst the DNSO has been widely criticised by some parties for its lack of speed to react, the challenges the ALSO could face on that point may be even more onerous. Against that background ensuring adequate cross SO communication occurs could be a challenging task. (iv) Effect on the DNSO consensus process - full support is offered for the evaluation comment in the draft. 2. Efficacy of ICANN decision making (i) The ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based policy making - this point is considered to relate to (iii) above, being heavily dependent upon the the ALSOs ability to generate its own consensus and also on the provision of an adequate mechanism for cross SO communication. (ii) Possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its SOs and the impact on resolution mechanisms - total support for views expressed in draft (iii) Likely financial and representational robustness of any SO - could become a very contentious issue, particularly if the current economic climate doesn't improve. Therefore the marking as 'Uncertain' appears justified. (iv) Likelihood of the proposal to achieve adequate, balanced and fair stakeholder representation on the Board - General support for the comments made in the draft but see additional note below. Note: The ISPCP still cannot see any compelling argument to adopt an approach that introduces the concept of having six regional representatives within the ALSO. Particularly as the current structure of other parts of the ICANN organisation is based on five regions. This point alone, challenges such an idea. It is not considered feasible to use one type of regional grouping in some constituencies and another elsewhere, without causing confusion.
|