Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] The agenda
ah. duly noted. agree. m On Jun 17, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hey Mikey: > > I think the goal is almost the opposite: we need to have both a car > and a boat that work and then it won't matter that much which choice > the family makes on any given day, and they'll generally choose the > obvious thing but it will actually be a lot less important than if the > boat has a big hole in its hull or the car has four flat tires. > > Today, the "implementation process" that you refer to is almost > entirely ad hoc so when you go down to your boat house, you never know > if you're going to find a yacht or a canoe or a zodiac or a old desk > that you hope floats you to where you want to be. > > Jordyn > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> my understanding is that we're trying to tee up a WG that will lay out the >> way to decide whether to use policy processes or implementation processes to >> carry out an action. >> >> at the risk of sounding foolish, i'm thinking that this is similar to a >> family laying out the rules they'll use to decide whether to use a car or a >> boat to get to their destination. they don't really need to know what a car >> or a boat is, and they certainly don't need to document how cars and boats >> work, or whether they work well or not. they just need criteria as to how >> to decide. eg. if the destination is separated from you by a road, use a >> car. if it's separated from you by water, use a boat. >> >> i've been thinking that what we're chartering is a WG to tune up the "decide >> between policy or implementation process" criteria (and processes, and >> review mechanisms) that Margie and Marika have laid out in the discussion >> paper. >> >> i think if we're heading for quicksand, i want to use a boat, not a car. :-) >> >> mikey >> >> >> On Jun 17, 2013, at 12:46 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> I would like to avoid quicksand as much as anyone and the WG should strive >>> to achieve that objective as much as possible but we will still run into >>> some quicksand and we need to have some guidelines when we do. >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx >>> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S. >>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:35 AM >>> To: 'Jordyn Buchanan' >>> Cc: h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; >>> marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx >>> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda >>> >>> >>> I don't think the PDP process can set "arbitrary" levels of granularity. >>> There can be varying levels of granularity, I think, but they should not be >>> arbitrary. However, I think that what you end up suggesting -- that the >>> council should know (or at least have some guidance on) the level of >>> specificity before handing off for implementation -- makes sense. However, >>> I don't think that it is a foregone conclusion that everything in a >>> recommendation is policy and should be dealt with as such, or whether the >>> more "nuts and bolts" aspects of a PDP recommendation should be considered >>> implementation and be dealt with as such (i.e., differently). In other >>> words, I don't agree that you can stuff a PDP recommendation full of >>> implementation and make it become "policy." I don't think these are things >>> that should be decided by this Drafting Team; rather it is one of the >>> questions to be posited to the WG. >>> >>> I do agree that that the retrospective GNSO Council declarations of >>> "policy" are one of the areas where practical problems have arisen lately >>> and provided the impetus for this PDP. A resolution for this problem has >>> to be within the assignment for the WG. I don't think that creating >>> agreed-upon definitions of policy and implementation are merely "moving the >>> dividing line." They may not be the only solutions -- I agree that other >>> trusted processes may be very helpful as well as more clarity on levels of >>> specificity. Nonetheless, without a better sense of what policy is (and >>> isn't), everything else is just dancing on quicksand. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jordyn Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx] >>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 1:31 AM >>> To: Shatan, Gregory S. >>> Cc: h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; >>> marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda >>> >>> I'm not sure how we're disagreeing if you accept the notion that what is >>> implementation is essentially the universe that is "not policy" and that >>> the policy development process can set arbitrary levels of granularity in >>> its specification. The only sensible conclusion is that the policy makers >>> are setting the scope of what's policy and what's implementation simply by >>> what they choose to include in the policy itself. I think you're trying to >>> say that the GNSO Council can't retrospectively declare something to be >>> reserved to the policy process after failing to grapple with it when >>> initially setting the policy. I think I agree with this, although I'll >>> note that it doesn't follow that just because something is implementation >>> that the need for real multistakeholder input comes to an end. >>> >>> I think it's painfully obvious that the reason that people have been >>> fighting about "policy versus implementation" lately is that various >>> interpretations favor the specific outcomes that different people prefer. >>> This is largely because on one side of that line we presently have a >>> situation in which not much of significance happens and on the other side >>> staff and the board do whatever various interest groups are capable of >>> lobbying them to do. Frankly, that's a terrible situation and no amount of >>> moving the dividing line around is going to make it better. We'd be way >>> better off if we had processes that we trusted on both sides of the >>> dividing line and then future working groups and the council would know >>> what level of specificity to provide before handing off to the next phase. >>> >>> Jordyn >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:12 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. >>> <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> I'm not too concerned with the bounds of GNSO power generally. I am >>>> concerned with the idea that the GNSO Council should have the unilateral >>>> power to determine whether an action is policy or implementation -- and >>>> more particularly whether an action is a change to an existing policy or >>>> merely implementation of that policy. I do agree that the more detailed >>>> the outcome of a PDP is, the less latitude there is in the choices to be >>>> made when implementing that policy. No WG can anticipate all the >>>> decisions that will come in implementation, but a WG that provides only >>>> high level policy advice and a GNSO that adopts only high level policy >>>> advice is leaving more of the "blocking and tackling" to those >>>> implementing the policy. A WG (and then the Council) can always decide to >>>> be more granular and leave less latitude to the implementers -- but >>>> greater levels of detail can be difficult to achieve in the WG context. >>>> >>>> The recent "policy vs. implementation" issues that have arisen did not >>>> come when the Council was specifying policy recommendations. Rather, they >>>> came later on, when actions that some would say were changes or extensions >>>> to the implementation of a policy and others would say were changes to the >>>> policy itself were controversial. I think that one of the tasks of the WG >>>> has to be providing guidance on how to distinguish "policy vs. >>>> implementation" in that context. Far from being a rat-hole, I thinking is >>>> the crux of what the WG needs to deal with. >>>> >>>> Greg >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Jordyn Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx] >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 2:20 PM >>>> To: Shatan, Gregory S. >>>> Cc: h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; >>>> marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx >>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|