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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think "we" need to do either. The WG can decide how to approach that. 
We just need to complete the charter and Mikey's last version of the questions 
I think gets us close. 

I personally chose to consider and study past mistakes made to arrive at 
effective questions/issues, ones that move us forward. If you want to use 
hypotheticals, that's fine too. I hope the WG will choose to do both.

Tim


On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Jen Wolfe" <jwolfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I completely agree that focusing on substantive issues polarizes the 
> discussion and gets us off topic, which is defining policy versus 
> implementation.  Perhaps creating a fictional future case to use as the 
> example for discussion may be helpful rather than using past actual events, 
> in which the outcome remains a hot issue.  
> 
> JENNIFER C. WOLFE, ESQ., APR, SSBB
> FOUNDER & PRESIDENT, WOLFE DOMAIN, A DIGITAL BRAND STRATEGY ADVISORY FIRM
> MANAGING PARTNER, WOLFE, SADLER, BREEN, MORASCH & COLBY, AN INTELLECTUAL 
> PROPERTY LAW FIRM
> IAM 300 - TOP 300 GLOBAL IP STRATEGISTS 2011 & 2012
> Follow Me:    
> Follow My Blog
> Domain Names Rewired
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jordyn Buchanan
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 7:59 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation 
> WG Charter - Holly's comments
> 
> 
> 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.)
>