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

[Vanda Scartezini <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Indeed questions from Greg are quite relevant and I also don¹t care if we
will use the name Policy + or X Implementation, what I believe is we need to
have clear general policy proposals reaching all different perspectives.
Implementation aspects will be so dependent upon regional and national
constrains that, in my opinion, a PDP can only touch the general framework
of those issues.
Vanda Scartezini
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Skype: vanda(dot)scartezini




From:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To:  WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:  quinta-feira, 20 de junho de 2013 15:30
To:  Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Shatan, Gregory S."
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject:  Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy &
Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments

Let¹s stay with ³policy and implementation² 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 we¹re going to charter. What we¹re talking about are policies which are
based on a PDP and policies which have been developed through other
³processes² (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 <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:12 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S. <mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>  ;
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 Œbigger questions¹ 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 ³the development or
modification of policy under the guise of Œimplementation details¹² 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 ³policy.²  Without definitions of ³policy² and
³implementation,² no one can say who¹s right and who¹s wrong.  This is where
history has brought us, and I think this group is here to avoid having
history repeat itself.
 
³What is policy² and ³What is implementation² 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 ³policy² and ³implementation.²  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 ³policy² or ³implementation²? What are the consequences of an action
being considered ³policy² vs. ³implementation?  What happens if you change
those consequences?  What are the flavors of ³policy² and what consequences
should attach to each flavor?  How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do
different paths lead to different ³flavors²?  How do we avoid the current
morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will call this policy because I
want certain consequences/²handling instructions² 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 ³policy² and ³implementation² matter less, if at all?
 
That said, I don¹t particularly care whether the WG is ³Policy &
Implementation² or ³Policy vs. Implementation².  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 ³policy vs. implementation².
 
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 Œpolicy and implementation¹ because Œpolicy v.
> implementation¹  implies it is one against the other, a situation that isn¹t
> 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 ³Policy Guidance²,
> 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
> <http://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