Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda
me too. m On Jun 17, 2013, at 3:53 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am fine with that. > > Chuck > > From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 3:14 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; 'eduardodiazrivera@xxxxxxxxx' > Cc: 'jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx'; 'h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; > 'gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx'; 'marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx' > Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda > > I tend to disagree, to a point. I think the WG needs to be asked to consider > what policy and implementation mean. I do agree that this task should not > define the success of the WG; but they need to grapple with the issue. > -------------------------- > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device > > > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 01:30 PM Eastern Standard Time > To: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@xxxxxxxxx>; Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx>; h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx > <gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>;marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx > <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda > > I agree with Jordan on this. First of all, it is not the DT’s task to define > policy or implementation. Second, if we require the WG to do that, that > might doom the WG to failure. As staff pointed out very well in the > Framework paper, it will likely be very hard to draw a bright line between > policy and implementation. I don’t have any problem with the WG spending a > little time on this but I think it should be limited. My personal guess is > that the best that may be achievable will be some guidelines rather than > clear definitions. It would be a shame if the work got bogged down in trying > to agree on clear definitions and the work of developing improvement > recommendations to processes to deal with policy and implementation was > neglected. > > Chuck > > From: Eduardo Diaz [mailto:eduardodiazrivera@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 11:44 AM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. > Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Jordyn Buchanan; h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda > > Does it make sense to say that as part of the final charter we add the fact > that the WG define those terms as part of their work? Or do we as a group > need to do that before hand? > > -ed > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > In order to come to decisions on whether an action is policy or > implementation, there need to be shared definitions of these terms. > Otherwise, we are in Alice in Wonderland territory. The WG needs to provide > clarity to these terms to inform future decisions. > > Greg > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:34 AM > To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Jordyn Buchanan' > Cc: h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; > marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda > > I think the dialog between Greg and Jordyn has been very constructive so I > won't get into that except on one point below. I don't think anyone is > suggesting that " the GNSO Council should have the unilateral power to > determine whether an action is policy or implementation". The Bylaws always > give the Board the final say. But the Bylaws also assign the task of policy > work for gTLDs to the GNSO so it seems only reasonable to me that the GNSO > must be involved in any decisions about " whether an action is policy or > implementation ". All some of us are saying is that the GNSO must be > involved in those decisions, not that it has final say. And when the staff > or Board or both disagree with the GNSO, there should be some interaction > with the GNSO in that regard, not unlike what is required with the GAC. > > 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 1:12 AM > To: 'Jordyn Buchanan' > Cc: h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; > marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: The agenda > > > 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 > > > > > -- > NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential and/or > subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named > addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, > disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by > mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|