Carthage — what is policy?
So the GNSO council today passed a resolution expressing regret at the Board's possible failure to consult with them regarding policy — in particular, chastising the Board for ignoring the council's advice to roll out sTLDs.
While I'm all for new TLDs and very concerned by the Board's failure to act on them, the council's approach to life seems dangerously wrongheaded. Members of the council argued that a decision about new TLDs is “policy” and that the GNSO is the “policy council” that must be consulted. But the contracts that registries have signed refer to the GNSO as the source of consensus policies. If the council is right about its role, then the registrars fighting against WLS in court could win through the GNSO!
More broadly, the GNSO resolution creates a bad precedent. I would ordinarily be applauding any “bottom up” attempts, but here the GNSO is misusing the idea of “bottom up” by making themselves the gateway to everything ICANN does. If this attempt works, it will create an excuse for the ICANN Board to eliminate the entire process of consensus policy development. When we're inside the non-consensus policy “policy” box, there is nothing in the ICANN contracts that says that “if there is a policy decision, the GNSO council must be consulted”.
Someone, someday, will claim that new registry services are “policy” and that the GNSO has to approve them.