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

[Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Greg:

I'm a little concerned we're about to go down the rathole that I just
suggested I'd like to avoid, but let me be a bit clearer.  There's
obviously bounds on the powers of the GNSO--one obvious example is
that the "picket fence" limits the applicability of consensus policies
to existing registry and registrar contracts.  Similarly, the GNSO
can't create policies about ccTLDs or addresses.  But the bounds on
the power of the GNSO are almost entirely uninteresting to the policy
v. implementation debate, because implementation is simply the
application of the adopted policy.  Something that isn't within the
powers of GNSO to adopt as policy doesn't become acceptable once we
move on to actually implementing the thing.  So my point is that, when
correctly acting within the proper scope of its policy remit, the
Council itself draws much of the line between policy and
implementation by choosing how they specify a policy.

Back to topics that are actually within our remit as a drafting team:
although I personally agree with you that a lighter weight process for
non-Consensus-Policy would be a useful I don't think we want to force
the WG to come up with something like that--the objective that Chuck
and I suggested was just to identify what the process for
non-Consensus-Policy should look like rather than expecting that it
ought to be different than the PDP.

Jordyn

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Shatan, Gregory S.
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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