Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Holly, just a question of clarification, your proposed edits seem to have
removed two objectives that were identified by the GNSO Council as needing
to be included as a minimum, namely:
* Recommendations on a process for providing GNSO "Policy Guidance"
* A framework for implementation related discussions related to GNSO Policy
Recommendations
Was that intentionally?

In relation to your proposed addition 'Recommendations on  how to determine
whe[n] a policy should only be finalised through a PDP process and when it
can be determined by a less formal process', Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws
already states that 'If the GNSO is conducting activities that are not
intended to result in a Consensus Policy, the Council may act through other
processes'. The main issue (at least from my perspective) is that there
currently are no formal 'other processes' by which such other activities,
that are not intended to result in consensus policies, can be carried out.
The GNSO has used various ad-hoc processes in the past (with varying degrees
of success), but as these processes do not have any formal standing under
the current Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures, there is also no formal
requirement for the ICANN Board to recognise these recommendations in a
similar way as they are required to do for PDP recommendations (see section
9 of Annex A). Hence, the importance of developing such other processes,
such as "GNSO Policy Guidance", to allow for other mechanisms to develop
GNSO non-consensus policy recommendations.

With best regards,

Marika

From:  Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Thursday 20 June 2013 01:53
To:  "gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc:  Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy &
Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments

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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature