<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments
- To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments
- From: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:53:57 +1000
Thanks everyone for the comments, particularly Marika for turning the document
around so quickly.
As we agreed at the last meeting, what we need to lock in by the next meeting
is the Mission and Scope. Once that is done, we can move on to the objectives
and goals (noting how little time we have for both).
With that in mind, I'd like to clarify the suggested Mission and Scope
statement, reflecting where we got to at the last meeting.
And my recollection is that there was still discussion on what is 'policy' -
not that this DT will define it, but that it is an issues. Specifically, there
was discussion arising from the 'Framework" document on policy - anything from
the more formal 'policy' decisions made through a PDP process to the less
formal 'policy' as procedure.
AS Chuck has said in his most recent comments, 'all processes, policy and
implementation and the framework for interaction between the two need to be
multi-stakeholder. so our scope is clearly beyond just policy as PDP.
So may I suggest the following as a revised Mission and Scope:
Key Assumptions:
Processes for the development of a formal policy through the PDP process are
well understood
Processes for determining whether the development of a policy should be
undertaken through a PDP process or a less formal process are not well
understood
The process for determining when a policy has been decided and the remaining
task is to implement the policy is not well defined
All processes, policy and implementation and the framework for interaction
between the two need to be multi-stakeholder
Mission for the WG:
The Policy & Implementation Working Group is tasked to provide the GNSO Council
with a recommendations on:
1. Principles that underpin any GNSO policy / implementation related
discussions;
2. Recommendations on how to determine whe a policy should only be
finalised through a PDP process and when it can be determined by a less formal
process;
3. A framework for determining when an issue is about 'policy' and when the
issue has progressed to the implementation of policy, and;
4. Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams are expected to
function and operate.
I realise that the text will take discussion, but my fear is that, unless we
put the issues into the Mission and Scope section, they will be lost.
Holly
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|