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

[Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Although I am more optimistic than most about being able to find
useful dividing lines between policy and implementation*, I also worry
that this discussion could be a real rathole for the working group.
More importantly, I'm not sure it's as interesting a question as it
may seem at first blush.  We need to try to allow more consistent
implementation policies that allow for proper multistakeholder
participation and also encourage more feedback between the
policy-making and implementation processes where appropriate.  I think
if we get this right, the distinction between policy and
implementation starts to matter a lot less--we get in trouble today
because the implementation phase is poorly defined and subject to
pretty unpredictable outcomes/process.  Since on one side we have the
heavyweight structure of the PDP and on the other side we have the
chaos of undefined "implementation", you get people trying to contort
the policy/implementation distinction around which side is more likely
to result in their desired outcomes instead of any real considered
distinction of what the words actually mean.

I do think it is useful to think about what "policy making" means when
the goal isn't a Consensus Policy, and this is directly referenced in
the doc that Chuck sent around.  Today, it's unclear how the GNSO goes
about creating policy other than in the form of Consensus Policy; I
think it's worth thinking about whether there should be lighter-weight
mechanisms where the intent isn't to affect contractual obligations,
or at the very least how the GNSO goes about causing these other
policies to be created through the PDP.  Similarly, it's important
that these policy outcomes be documented so that there's somewhere for
the community as well as ICANN staff to take note of them.

To me, getting all of this right is much more important than figuring
out exactly where the dividing line is between policy and
implementation.  In fact, getting good process in place will probably
make the policy v. implementation debate a lot more tractable.

Jordyn

* As Chuck notes, figuring out what is policy may be in scope for the
working group itself, but probably not for us.  Having said that I'll
briefly note that my view is that "policy" is basically whatever the
GNSO Council says it is; there are some limitations on the power of
the GNSO to set policy, but not many and they're more about "Consensus
Policy" in particular and not "policy" in general.

On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> So I look forward to the meeting this coming week
>
> Kind Regards
> Holly Raiche
> h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>