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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i've done another round of the questions.  i've added the new ones and 
restructured the old ones just a bit to reflect some of the conversation on 
this thread.  this is being done in "mind mapping" software, so it's extremely 
easy to revise and rearrange if you don't like something.  see what you think.  

Questions

    What lessons can be learned from past experience?

        What are the consequences of an action being considered “policy” vs. 
“implementation?
        Why does it matter if something is “policy” or “implementation”?
        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 options are available for policy and implementation efforts and what 
are the criteria for determining which should be used?

        Are policy and implementation on a spectrum rather than binary?
        What are the flavors of “policy” and what consequences should attach to 
each flavor?
        What happens if you change those consequences?

    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 vs. the GNSO Council in setting policy?
        What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
        In order to maintain multi-stakeholder processes, once policy moves to 
implementation how should the community be involved in a way that is meaningful 
and effective?
        Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to 
facilitate continuity of the MSM process that already occurred?


On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> I'm saying that essentially all the discussion (in this drafting team)
> about the past have focused on one specific situation, and that
> situation is both polarizing and one that the staff has already
> acknowledged was not handled ideally.  If we continue to frame our
> discussions around it, I think the odds of talking past each other are
> really high.  So, personally, I'd prefer to find some other examples
> just to avoid the WG from becoming the "Was the Strawman okay or not?
> WG".
> 
> On the other hand, I do think your question is totally reasonable, and
> I think making sure that we don't lose the features of
> multi-stakeholderism and appropriate community involvement in
> implementation is a critical part of a successful eventual outcome for
> the WG.
> 
> Jordyn
> 
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Effective solutions to problems cannot be found if the WG does not consider 
>> the events from which the problem arose. I think we seem to be in agreement 
>> on that. If you don't agree that my example is one of those problems, that's 
>> fine and even expected. I am not suggesting we include specific examples or 
>> rehash them. It was simply "my" example that lead to why I think Alan's 
>> question should be included, but modified as I suggested. To be clearer, 
>> that question might be:
>> 
>> In order to maintain multi-stakeholder processes, once policy moves to 
>> implementation how should the community be involved in a way that is 
>> meaningful and effective?
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 23, 2013, at 6:11 PM, "Jordyn Buchanan" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> While I know that some of the impetus for the Policy and
>>> Implementation work came from a specific set of events, I'm not sure
>>> we're going to get to the best outcomes in either the drafting team or
>>> the eventual working group by either framing the work around those
>>> events, or by spending too much time revisiting those debates.  It is
>>> helpful to look at what has worked well in the past and what hasn't,
>>> but this will require a broader survey of past efforts and we really
>>> should look just as hard at good examples as problematic ones.
>>> 
>>> I also think we're in danger of getting into the weeds a bit here
>>> working through some of the substantive issues rather than framing the
>>> scope of the working group.  We shouldn't necessarily be assuming what
>>> the outcomes of the WG are going to look like; rather, we should make
>>> sure they're chartered to look at the right problems.
>>> 
>>> Returning to the first two assumptions that Chuck and I laid out
>>> around the WG's mission, it seems to me that there's way more low
>>> hanging fruit around getting the stuff that happens after a policy is
>>> adopted (a.k.a. "implementation") to work effectively and consistently
>>> rather than attempting to grapple with topics like how the GNSO is
>>> structured, which feel like quagmires and are already properly in the
>>> scope of the GNSO review.  I'm hoping that, to the extent people feel
>>> strongly about some of this stuff, we can at least agree to structure
>>> the charter in a way that the WG can start off creating some structure
>>> where there is none before attempting to grapple with these much more
>>> challenging issues.  One of the key failings of our policy vs.
>>> implementation debate is that tons of people believe the policy-making
>>> progress is fundamentally broken.  Let's prove them wrong by
>>> chartering a WG that can get some useful stuff done.
>>> 
>>> Jordyn
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Tim Ruiz <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> 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] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 8:44 PM
>>>> To: Mike O'Connor; 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> 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] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:59 PM
>>>> To: 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>
>>>> 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.)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>>>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>> 
> 


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