RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Holly.  Please see my responses below.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 7:19 AM
To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Marika Konings
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda

First,  thanks to both Marika (and ICANN staff) and Chuck for getting the WG 
conversations started.  From the WG template, it is clear that our first task 
is to fill in section II - Mission, purpose and Deliverables. And we should 
start with the Mission.

At this early stage, I think we need to go beyond what Jordyn/Chuck have 
suggested for mission.
[Chuck Gomes] Totally agree.  Note that Jordyn & I prefaced our input by saying 
that our input was not intended to be inclusive.  We simply provided two 
assumptions that we thought would be good to include in the mission along with 
other more standard elements of a mission.

Reading the Draft Framework, and comments made during the Beijing meeting, we 
haven't even agreed on what we mean by 'policy'.  As the Draft Framework sets 
out, the term policy can mean anything from a formal policy that requires a PDP 
process all the way to general practices, with no attendant process.  Yet in 
some cases, 'operational' policies may well impact on the larger community and 
should involve that consideration - however informal.  As the Framework 
document also points out, the line between what is policy (however we define 
it) and implementation will not be easy to draw.
[Chuck Gomes] The draft framework provides excellent context in terms of policy 
but we need to remember that it is not the DT's job to define policy or 
implementation but rather to map out the work of the PDP WG, which can be to 
define different types of policy and their respective impacts.

And other issues have been raised by other commenting parties including when 
comment is sought (too late in the process or not) and in what time frame - 
versus another statement that the actual PDP process can take years.

Yet I do not think we can come up with anything meaningful unless we can get a 
better handle on what we are talking about.  Again, as the Framework document 
notes, all the AC/SOs have a role in policy - so we need to start there - what 
do we mean when we say policy, and how do we ensure that all who are impacted 
by 'policy' are heard in a meaningful and timely fashion both when it is 
developed and when a change is considered.  And, of course, its implementation 
is part of that conversation - one that was highlighted in new gTLD issues, but 
as the IPC notes, what is finally produced should be forward looking.[Chuck 
Gomes]  Again, we have to be careful here to avoid doing the work of the WG.  
The draft charter already makes clear that all ACs and SOs have a role to play 
so I don't think we need to revisit that.  You point out a very good question 
to include in the charter: "what do we mean when we say policy, and how do we 
ensure that all who are impacted by 'policy' are heard in a meaningful and 
timely fashion both when it is developed and when a change is considered"; we 
might want to break that up into two questions because they are somewhat 
different.  We could also add some guidelines like the IPC advice to be forward 
looking.

So I look forward to the meeting this coming week

Kind Regards
Holly Raiche
h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>