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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anne, the WG must be aware of what is in the 
current Operating Principles, but their 
recommendations are not constrained by what is there.
Alan

At 20/06/2013 03:53 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:

> Thanks Marika.  I do think Item 1. has to be 
> modified to add "in light of existing GNSO 
> Operating Procedures".  The current statement is 
> a bit open-ended in that it doesn't seem to take 
> into account that the Drafting Team (and the 
> Working Group) will have to appreciate the existing structure and rules.
> For example, the current GNSO Council Operating 
> Procedures provide that if the GNSO Council has 
> a problem with staff implementation, they are to 
> seek review of that implementation by way of a 
> letter to the ICANN Board and this existing 
> provision (as well as others in the Operating 
> Procedures and the PDP Manual) will need to be 
> considered in the process of trying to tackle this difficult topic.
> What I am trying to say is that the scope of the 
> WG really must include getting a handle on the 
> way things are supposed to work now based on 
> existing Operating Procedures and the PDP manual 
> before they can make specific recommendations.
> Anne
>
> []
> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
> Of Counsel
> Lewis and Roca LLP • Suitee 700
> One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 857701-1611
> Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725 
> <mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>AAikman@xxxxxxxxx • 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] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:10 AM
> To: Marika Konings; Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated 
> version of Policy & Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments
> 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 
> <<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday 20 June 2013 09:28
> To: Holly Raiche 
> <<mailto:h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <<mailto: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 
> <<mailto:h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday 20 June 2013 01:53
> To: 
> "<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>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:
> <!--[if !supportLists]-->1.    Principles that 
> underpin any GNSO policy / implementation related discussions;
> <!--[if 
> !supportLists]-->2. 
> <!--[endif]-->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;
> <!--[if !supportLists]-->3.     <!--[endif]-->A 
> framework for determining when an issue is about 
> 'policy' and when the issue has progressed to 
> the implementation of policy, and;
> <!--[if 
> !supportLists]-->4.     <!--[endif]-->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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, 
> please go to <http://www.lewisandroca.com/>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.