Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments
i'm fine with staying with "policy and implementation" -- and i think this has been a useful conversation. i like Greg's questions too -- and would be fine including them in the charter as representative of the questions the WG should take up. but i wouldn't want to treat them as an exhaustive or complete list. many charters include a series of questions for the WG to answer -- and we could do the same with this charter. or we could leave the WG the flexibility to come up with questions on their own, especially during the part of the work where it is reviewing the past and trying to extract lessons-learned. given that we're a small Drafting Team working under a tight deadline, my leaning is to let the WG build its own questions. that's why i decided to leave my little series of questions out of the charter -- it seems like the charter as written give the WG the flexibility to pick up my questions, Greg's questions and other questions yet to be developed. mikey On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:30 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Let’s stay with “policy and implementation” simply since the GNSO council > mandated us by using this phrase. > > I agree that all the questions mentioned by Greg should be discussed by the > WG we’re going to charter. What we’re talking about are policies which are > based on a PDP and policies which have been developed through other > “processes” (it could be just 1 step). Inherent to all these kinds of > processes is their need for implementation. > There is the interaction aspect between policy and implementation which > should be reflected in the charter as well as the impact om implementation on > policy (development). > > Therefore clear definitions are essential > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > > > From: Gomes, Chuck > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:12 PM > To: Shatan, Gregory S. ; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation > WG Charter - Holly's comments > > I agree with Greg a lot in his ‘bigger questions’ paragraph. He raises some > really good questions. Should some of those be added to the charter? I tend > to think that might be a good idea. > > Chuck > > From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S. > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:30 PM > To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation > WG Charter - Holly's comments > > It is the view of some, but by no means all, that “the development or > modification of policy under the guise of ‘implementation details’” has > occurred. I would submit that what has occurred in those instances is an > attempt to halt the development or modification of implementation by > attempting to recast it as “policy.” Without definitions of “policy” and > “implementation,” no one can say who’s right and who’s wrong. This is where > history has brought us, and I think this group is here to avoid having > history repeat itself. > > “What is policy” and “What is implementation” are important questions, but > they are small questions in a sense. They assume that the answers matter > because they will plug into the current framework or branching variable sets > used for “policy” and “implementation.” As long as this is the case, policy > vs. implementation will just be a tug of war to bring a task into one set of > outcomes or the other. > > The bigger questions are more interesting. Why does it matter if something > is “policy” or “implementation”? What are the consequences of an action being > considered “policy” vs. “implementation? What happens if you change those > consequences? What are the flavors of “policy” and what consequences should > attach to each flavor? How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do > different paths lead to different “flavors”? How do we avoid the current > morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will call this policy because I > want certain consequences/”handling instructions” to be attached to it)? Are > policy and implementation on a spectrum rather than binary? What is the role > of the GNSO in implementation? What is the role of the GNSO vs. the GNSO > Council in setting policy? Can we answer these questions so the definitions > of “policy” and “implementation” matter less, if at all? > > That said, I don’t particularly care whether the WG is “Policy & > Implementation” or “Policy vs. Implementation”. I think the first implies a > broader set of tasks and outcomes for the WG and would tend to support it. > However, I think we are here because ICANN history is riddled with battles > over “policy vs. implementation”. > > Greg > > From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:51 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: Mike O'Connor; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation > WG Charter - Holly's comments > > I don't care either way as long as an important underlying goal is not lost - > not allowing the development or modification of policy under the guise of > "implementation details." That is the primary motivation that got the GNSO > Council interested in this issue. > > Tim > > > On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:41 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Based on the conversations on the Council and in other settings I think the > leaning was to say ‘policy and implementation’ because ‘policy v. > implementation’ implies it is one against the other, a situation that isn’t > necessarily true. I support this view. > > Chuck > > From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:20 AM > To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: 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.) > > > > * * * > > 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.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|