[bc-gnso] ANNOUNCEMENT From Secretariat: Policy vs. Implementation: Public Comment period open

[Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear BC Members,

Please find below an ICANN announcement about Policy vs. Implementation: 
Public comment period open.
Thank you,

Kind Regards,

Benedetta Rossi
BC Secretariat
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home
www.bizconst.org
bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx


 Policy vs. Implementation

Comment/Reply Periods ^(*)

        

Important Information Links

*Comment Open:*

        

31 January 2013

*Comment Close:*

        

21 February 2013

*Close Time (UTC):*

        

23:59

        

Public Comment Announcement 
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31jan13-en.htm>
*Reply Open:*

        

22 February 2013

        

To Submit Your Comments (Forum) 
<mailto:comments-policy-implementation-31jan13@xxxxxxxxx>
*Reply Close:*

        

14 March 2013

        

View Comments Submitted 
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-policy-implementation-31jan13/>
*Close Time (UTC):*

        

23:59

        

Report of Public Comments

Brief Overview

*Originating Organization:*

        

ICANN Staff

*Categories/Tags:*

        

Policy Processes

*Purpose (Brief):*

        

In order to encourage feedback on the ICANN Staff Paper Policy vs. 
Implementation -- Draft Framework for Discussion 
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08jan13-en.pdf>[PDF, 
195 KB], a public comment forum has now been opened.
*Current Status:*

        

ICANN Staff has developed a paper outlining a draft framework for 
community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria that 
might facilitate dealing with questions relating to policy vs. 
implementation in the future.
*Next Steps:*

        

The received comments are expected to feed into the session that is 
being planned on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Beijing.
*Staff Contact:*

        

Marika Konings

        

*Email:*

        

Policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:Policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Policy%20vs.%20Implementation%20public%20comment%20period>
Detailed Information

*Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose*

Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related 
issues of the new gTLD program, there is increased focus on which topics 
call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which 
processes should be used, at what time and how diverging opinions should 
be acted upon. In order to facilitate these discussions, ICANN Staff has 
developed a draft framework for community discussion that identifies a 
number of steps and criteria that might facilitate dealing with similar 
questions in the future. The paper 
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08jan13-en.pdf>[PDF, 
195 KB] identifies a number of questions that the community may want to 
consider further in this context, as well as a couple of suggested 
improvements that could be considered in the short term. While 
developing a bright-line rule as to what is policy or implementation may 
not be possible, the hope is that by developing clear processes and 
identifying clear roles and responsibilities for the different 
stakeholders, it will become easier to deal with these issues going 
forward and allow for broad participation and involvement. In order to 
facilitate discussions on this topic, a session is being scheduled at 
the ICANN meeting in Beijing. Input received as a result of this public 
comment forum is intended to feed into those discussions, which are also 
intended to identify next steps.
*Section II: Background*

There are multiple kinds of "policy" within the ICANN world. There are 
formal policies developed through the policy development processes as 
set forth in the Bylaws. There are operational policies generally not 
subject to a PDP or considered implementation, such as the Conflicts of 
Interest Policy, but for which public comment is sought and considered. 
Finally, there are general practices that are sometimes referred to as 
"little p" policies or more accurately "procedures", such as the 30-day 
public comment requirement for Bylaw changes. Within this category again 
there are a variety of considerations. There could be established 
practices, for example, on topics that although within scope of a policy 
development process (PDP) have not resulted in a formal recommendation 
to the Board that could serve as authoritative "Policy." In some of 
those instances, for example vertical integration or registrar 
accreditation procedures, ICANN identified a path forward and if a 
policy recommendation on these topics were to later arise through a PDP, 
ICANN would then consider how that policy might impact or require change 
to established practice(s) (resulting in "Policy").
One area that is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN community 
is identifying the proper process to follow when there are changes to 
policy recommendations that have already been adopted by the Board, or 
to the proposals related to the implementation of approved policy 
recommendations. Questions have been raised about when those issues need 
to be vetted using a new PDP and when it would suffice to use public 
comment to vet a proposed change for public comment and for the Board 
and/or staff to act on that based on the comment received. Such 
questions arose, for example, during the evolution of the applicant 
guidebook for the New gTLD Program, and also during the negotiation of 
key contracts such as the .com and .net registry agreements regarding 
the impact of potential incorporation of a "thick" Whois registry model.
Another, associated issue is when resolution of a new issue should be 
supported by a consensus of the ICANN community, and when an issue 
arising from the implementation of a policy may be effectuated by the 
ICANN Board or ICANN Staff upon taking a range of advice even if there 
is no consensus within the ICANN community.
In order to better deal with the issues outlined in this paper, ICANN 
Staff has outlined a number of proposed principles to serve as a basis 
for this discussion as well as developed a proposed framework which can 
be found in the annex to the paper.
*Section III: Document and Resource Links*

Policy versus Implementation -- Draft Framework for Discussion 
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08jan13-en.pdf>[PDF, 
195 KB]
*Section IV: Additional Information*

N/A


        
        
        
        

/(*) 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./
Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

http://gnso.icann.org