Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Recap of meeting & items for review

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/16/13 7:18 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> I think that this covers (at a minimum) the whole "generic" side of
> ICANN. Implicit in the P vs I issue is the division of labor,
> oversight, responsibilities, authority, etc. of the various "actors"
> on the generic front (GNSO, Board. Staff, GAC, ALAC, SSAC, etc.).

I'd like a shorter list of "actors" _here_ in "acts" creating,
modifying or deleting generic shared registry systems.

I share a view held by some that reacting to policy only through its
implementation is a restriction upon the ability of an AC -- the GAC
-- to provide timely advice to the Board. However, I don't think the
means of reducing or removing this restriction is within the mission,
purpose or deliverables of the drafting team.

I've the same view on the present restrictions of the RSSAC, SSAC and
other ACs, to provide timely advice to the Board.

If we can agree that whatever the drafting team's mission, purpose or
deliverables is, it isn't unconditionally removing the existing
restrictions on parties other than the GNSO on policy formation, but
merely a clarification, perhaps even a "bright line", delimiting their
access to the means of implementation, as a side-effect of
clarification, perhaps even with the same "bright line", delimiting a
GNSO policy from the multiple means of its implementations, of which
the GNSO form preferences, possibly unshared by others, then we can
turn to what is possibly the more permanent area where the "division
of labor" has been unclear -- the relationships of the Board and Staff
to GNSO policy and implementation.

Eric