Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments
hi Marika, this is really helpful and i support your suggested wording, with one incredible nitpick editing suggestion. i think it would be helpful to replace the slash "/" in your bullet 1 with a word. Avri and i had a riotous off-list conversation as to whether this effort is called "policy vs implementation" (my words) or "policy AND implementation" (the words that show up everywhere else). i gently prefer "policy versus implementation" because it implies that this is about the exploring how the choice between various courses of action are defined and implemented. "Policy AND implementation" can be interpreted much more broadly, which may not be what was intended. i don't have a strong preference here and can happily live with our current wording. but i think "policy / implementation" is ambiguous -- plus i bet that non-native English speakers will be confused by that construct. see? one character. this may be a personal-best smallest-nitpick for me. :-) thanks, mikey On Jun 20, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear All, > > Following further conversations with Holly, I would like you to consider the > following rewording of the mission & scope section to address the points > raised by Holly in her original email (note that Holly supports these as > reworded): > > The Policy & Implementation Working Group is tasked to provide the GNSO > Council with a set of recommendations on: > > 1. A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy / > implementation related discussions; > 2. Recommendations on a process for providing GNSO “Policy Guidance”, > including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process > instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process; > 3. A framework for implementation related discussions related to GNSO > Policy Recommendations, including criteria for when something is to be > considered policy and when it should be considered implementation, and; > 4. Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams are expected > to function and operate. > > Please feel free to share any additional comments and/or edits you may have > on this section or other parts of the draft charter with the mailing list. > > With best regards, > > Marika > > From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thursday 20 June 2013 09:28 > To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" > <gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation > WG Charter - Holly's comments > > 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 > > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|