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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Should have proof read before I sent this. I was referring to additional rights 
protection mechanisms, and in the last paragraph meant to say "...but beyond 
just consultative."

On Jun 22, 2013, at 11:46 AM, "Tim Ruiz" 
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

I like that question and agree it should be in the charter. That said:

I also want to note that as part of the new gTLD PDP there were a number of off 
shoot WGs that dealt with different issues. One WG that I was on was tasked 
with determining if additional protection mechanisms were needed to fulfill one 
of the PDP principals. There was clearly NO consensus that any were needed and 
I believe the majority agreed that none were needed with only the Business and 
IP constituents not agreeing.

Of course those are powerful constituents with a lot of money and influence so 
the issue did not die there and they continued to lobby the Board, the GAC, the 
US Capitol Hill, etc. until they got what they wanted. And while some may point 
out that those issues ultimately came back to the GNSO for resolution, they 
came back as "this will happen, and this is your chance to have some say as to 
how." So you can call that MSM if you want, you can call it implementation if 
you want. In reality it was an override of what the majority of the community 
had already decided. It was a modification of the policy established by 
legitimate MSM mechanisms.

So Alan's comment, "Once it moves to implementation, if the policy has not been 
specified in excruciating detail, this too needs to involve the community, 
perhaps in more of a consultative mode." is one I also strongly agree with buy 
beyond just consultative. The community needs to be involved in a meaningful 
and effective way to avoid powerful, wealthy special interest groups from 
capturing the process.

Tim


On Jun 22, 2013, at 10:12 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Alan,

You make some excellent points in a very articulate manner. I agree that the 
“entire current policy vs implementation debate (can) be a red herring” and I 
think it is therefore important that the charter help the WG avoid that.  I 
also think that you are right on in saying, “to the extent that implementation 
is making decision which have substantive impact on what the final product does 
or how stakeholders are impacted, we need to maintain the MSM”.  I think it is 
true that “at some level "implementation" is really just that, the details and 
mechanics of moving something from a piece of paper to reality” and that may be 
a good start in defining implementation, but it is critical that the MSM 
continue throughout that process.

Finally, with regard to your last paragraph on policy staff involvement, I 
wonder if another question we should add to the charter is the following or 
something like it:  “Should policy staff be involved through the implementation 
process to facilitate continuity of the MSM process that already occurred?”

Chuck

From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 8:44 PM
To: 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

Mikey,

My thoughts on this have changed significantly over the past weeks. I said a 
bit of this on the call last week, but I will try to expand it here.

I think that the entire current policy vs implementation debate is a red 
herring and a diversion. If multi-stakeholderism has any meaning, there cannot 
be a sharp line drawn where it suddenly ceases to be important. Certainly, at 
some level "implementation" is really just that, the details and mechanics of 
moving something from a piece of paper to reality. But to the extent that 
implementation is making decision which have substantive impact on what the 
final product does or how stakeholders are impacted, we need to maintain the 
MSM.

If we take the new gTLD program as an example, for reasons of exhaustion or 
based on careful thought, many of the PDP recommendations were very general. 
Moreover, the PDP came out with "principles" which implies that there will be 
substantive decisions made moving to a real-life implementation. If the PDP 
task Force had chosen to specify things in more details, we would have taken 
that as "policy". Since they didn't, it is implementation. ut that does not 
alter the need for community involvement in the ensuing decisions.

Moreover, if we look at the process which took us from the PDP Recs accepted by 
the Board, to the final launch of the program, we find that this WAS a 
consultative process. When the IRT recommendations failed to receive strong 
support, and the staff proposal for a URS and TMCH had even less support, the 
GNSO was given the task of pulling together this "implementation" issue.

So yes, at some point things become implementation when the mechanics are put 
in place. But what we are currently calling implementation is at a far higher 
level.

Now, there *IS* a difference based on how we do it today. *Policy" is developed 
by the GNSO essentially as an independent exercise with minimal involvement 
from non-policy staff (although Fadi has correctly declared that these folks 
can no longer ignore the process). Once it moves to implementation, if the 
policy has not been specified in excruciating detail, this too needs to involve 
the community, perhaps in more of a consultative mode.

Alan

At 6/21/2013 11:59 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

i've had a go at smashing together the lists of questions that Greg and i came 
up with -- and "clump" them a bit.  see what you think of this.  Greg, this 
especially means you -- i always worry that i've lost essential meaning when i 
rework stuff like this.  no editorial pride, please fix anything you find 
broken.

Questions

  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?
     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)?
     Can we answer these questions so the definitions of “policy” and 
“implementation” matter less, if at all?

  What are the flavors of “policy” and what consequences should attach to each 
flavor?

     Are policy and implementation on a spectrum rather than binary?
     What options are available for policy and implementation efforts and what 
are the criteria for determining which should be used?

  Who determines the choice between whether something is policy or 
implementation?

     How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to 
different “flavors”?
     Who makes these determinations and how?
     How are the policy vs implementation decisions reviewed and approved?
     What happens if the reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?

  What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review and 
approval work is done?

     How are "policy and implementation" issues first identified (before, 
during and after implementation)?
       What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
     What is the role of the GNSO vs. the GNSO Council in setting policy?

On Jun 21, 2013, at 8:52 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


I agree that the list of questions should not be considered to be exhaustive.  
I wonder if we should treat some questions as mandatory (or at least strongly 
encouraged) and others as optional as well as encouraging the WG to create 
additional questions.  It seems to me that it would be really important for 
some questions to be answered by the WG; if we make them optional, there is the 
risk that they won’t be addressed.

Chuck

From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner- 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of 
Mike O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:59 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

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<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:12 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; 
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: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


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)



PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)