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

[Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ugh, fixing a typo in the To: line (respond to this message instead of
the last one to avoid e-mailing a non-existent address).

Jordyn

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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