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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anne,

The value of getting real-time GAC input is definitely an important issue, one 
that some of us have been concerned about for a long time and one that needs a 
lot more focus going forward.  But, as you note, it is an ICANN organizational 
issue that goes beyond the scope of the Policy & Implementation WG and one that 
will require GAC involvement to solve.  Unfortunately, to date, efforts to get 
GAC involvement in WGs have been extremely unfruitful and there is no reason to 
believe that that will change in the near term.  The GAC will be invited to 
participate in the WG but I am not going to hold my breath.  I understand and 
respect the reasons for that but that still leaves the problem to be resolved.

The policy & implementation WG should certainly be aware of the GAC dynamic in 
its work, but I do not believe that solving the challenge of GAC input should 
be one of its tasks.  That is not specifically a policy & implementation issue 
even though GAC involvement in policy development and policy implementation is 
needed.

Chuck

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:15 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Shatan, Gregory S.; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation WG 
Charter - Holly's comments

Very interesting questions.  I have to admit that in the grand scheme of 
things, the BIGGEST issue I see in ICANN organizational dynamics as to 
policy-making is the fact that there is no real time input of GAC policy advice 
into the concurrent GNSO process so there is this "ping-pong" thing happening 
and GAC Advice has special status under the By-Laws.

I know there is a Working Group dealing with how GAC input can be had earlier 
in the process but it does seem that when this WG looks at Policy and 
Implementation, we have to acknowledge that ICANN Board Policy is developed 
with input from more than one source and that GAC Policy Advice can conflict 
with GNSO Policy Advice.  So I think the scope also has to reflect an inquiry 
into how organizational effectiveness can be improved in this regard.  
Otherwise, we are again prone to having the WG only look at "policy VERSUS 
implementation" and are thinking too small.

Anne

[X]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> • 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.


________________________________
From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:12 AM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 20 June 2013 09:28
To: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 20 June 2013 01:53
To: "gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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



________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://www.lewisandroca.com/>.
Phoenix (602)262-5311



Reno (775)823-2900

Tucson (520)622-2090



Albuquerque (505)764-5400

Las Vegas (702)949-8200



Silicon Valley (650)391-1380


  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying 
to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.

  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that 
if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or 
written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of 
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.