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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I believe that "policy" absolutely cannot be whatever the GNSO says it is.  No 
entity should be allowed to decide the limits of its own powers.  The natural 
tendency would then be to stretch the definition of policy to its outer limits 
(and then some).  There needs to be an objective, transparent, balanced 
definition of policy.

I think the WG's work needs to be as rational and informed as possible.  One 
thing I think the WG needs to do is a survey of policy/implementation 
definitions/debates in ICANN and beyond (we may have much to learn from other 
organizations that have grappled with this issue).

I do agree that the GNSO needs something more lightweight and nimble than the 
PDP (or the oxymoronic PDP).  I alsothink it needs to be more structured than 
GNSO Council letter-writing.   Wee should task the WG (if within the DT's 
powers to do so) to make recommendations on such processes.

Greg
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device


----- Original Message -----
From: Jordyn Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda


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
>


                                                                * * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

                                                                * * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
                                                                        
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00