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

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

Greg,

Please provide your definition of 'oxymoronic PDP'.  

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 12:47 PM
To: 'jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; 'marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda


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