[gnso-policyimpl-dt] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation DT meeting -24 June 2013

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next Policy and Implementation Drafting Team teleconference will be held on 
Monday  1st July 2013 at 1900 UTC for 1,5 hours.

Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Drafting Team 
call held on Monday 24 June 2013 at 15:00 UTC at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20130624en.mp3

On page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>jun


The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO
Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

Attendees:
Holly Raiche - ALAC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC
Mike O'Connor - ISPCP
Jill Titzer - RrSG
Kristina Rosette - IPC
Jordyn Buchanan - RrSG
Eric Brunner-Williams - Individual
Eduardo Diaz - ALAC
Greg Shatan - IPC
Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC
Alan Greenberg - ALAC
David Cake - NCSG


Apologies:
Wolf Knoben - ISPCP
Chuck Gomes - RySG

ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Lars Hoffman
Berry Cobb
Julia Charvolen
Nathalie Peregrine

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **


 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/wiJ-Ag

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Nathalie Peregrine
For GNSO Secretariat

Adobe Chat Transcript for Monday 24 June 2013:



  Nathalie  Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the Policy and Implementation 
Drafting team call on the 24th June 2013

  Eduardo Diaz:¡Saludos a todos!

  Eduardo Diaz:Hello

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Hola EdwRDO

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry CAPS

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Anne Aikman-Scalese has joined the call

  Mike O'Connor:Jordyn you may be muted

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Anyone hear me?

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Sigh.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I'm not, but it's not working.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I will dial into the audio bridge.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Let Kristina go first.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Eric Brunner Williams has joined the call

  Kristina Rosette:That would work.

  Mike O'Connor:+!

  ebw:+1

  Kristina Rosette:I understand your point, Jordyn, but I don't understand what 
"relationship" means in this context and that's what I'm struggling with.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry I dropped out as I was typing  that I do agree with 
Kristina's point  on the need for careful and accurate  wording

  Kristina Rosette:Can we say "the exact delineation . . . ."?  That would be 
clearer, IMHO, and would address my concern.

  Kristina Rosette:I'm saying replace "relationship" with "delineation".

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Greg--I agree that it's fine to discuss the issue, and is 
reasonable to put in in the "Recommended WG Tasks" list

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Just drawing a distinction between that and one of the 
headline components of the mission.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:AGree with Marika that Implementation is more a question 
of timing - i.e. it starts to happen after the Board adopts policy - so the 
issue is more what happens when GNSO objects to implementation.

  ebw:there are texts that emerge as work product of pdps conducted under the 
rules concerning the gnso council. these are called "policy". what alternate 
meaning is useful? how will an alternate meaning change what the work product 
of a pdp is?

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Alan Greenberg has joined the call

  Nathalie  Peregrine:David Cake has joined the call

  ebw:i've a wicked sore throat so i don't want to croak on the call, but the 
push to dump "policy" means we've somehow found an alternate source of 
documeents.

  ebw:or something "between" pdp-generated "policy" and whever is called 
"implementation(s)"

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:You have to be careful that you do not hamstring the 
staff in implementation.  If they have to come back every time they think there 
could be some policy issue involved, you will significantly delay 
implementation.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:The process needs "appropriate" consultation with the 
community.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I'm not sure what that is.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:That's a problem for the working group.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Sometimes it's probably none at all.

 Jordyn A. Buchanan:(But it's a problem for the WG, not for the DT.)

  Kristina Rosette:Understand your point, Alan, but isn't that distinction an 
intentional one made by whatever PDP WG develops the policy recommendations.  
In other words, the more specific the PDP WG policy recommendations, the less 
discretion needs to be exercised in implementation.  When you contrast the New 
gTLD Policy Recommendations v. the domain name tasting policy recommendations, 
you see that pretty clearly.

  Marika Konings:The concept of Implementation Review Teams that was introduced 
as part of the revised PDPs is intended to assist in that determination (staff 
will come back to the IRT if there are questions / clarificaitons) and the IRT 
may decide that some of those issues are policy and need to be taken back to 
the GNSO. However, currently there is no defined framework / process for doing 
so - hence one of the objectives of the WG to look into this.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Kristina--I agree with that.  We just need a predictable 
process for implementation, so the GNSO knows what they are handing off to.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:(What Mikey is saying right now.)

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:RIght now we make up implementation every time we do it.

  Kristina Rosette:And I hate to make it more complicated, but are we using 
"policy" to also include "policy" that isn't Capital P [consensus] Policy?

  ebw:kristina -- Yes (or yes).

  Kristina Rosette:@ebw:  Thanks. That's what I thought.

  Alan Greenberg:@Kristina, yes, certainly. If the policy is done in 
excrutiating detail, then what we are now calling implementation really is. I 
am not at all sure that wnen the new gtld pdp settled on high-level policy, 
they were explicitly saying that the community did not case how those 
high-level statements were fleshed out. Certainly your const, IPC did not say 
to staff, go do it and we don't care about the details.

  Kristina Rosette:I thought appropriate was supposed to go before 
multi-stakeholder.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Yes.

  Kristina Rosette:yes

  ebw:"all appropriate processes, ..." not "all inappropriate processes, ..."

  Kristina Rosette:Hmm.  Good point, Alan.

  Mike O'Connor:+1 Alan

  Mike O'Connor:been there, done that

  Kristina Rosette:Marika: What mechanism is in place to allow the WG to seek 
charter guidance/clarification?

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:My proposal:  Just chop off the second half of #3, make it 
a new #5 that says "Guidance on when something is to be considered policy and 
when it should be considered implementation"

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:(and I'm still not sure we need the Key Assumptions in the 
Mission at all)

  Mike O'Connor:I'm oK either way on key assumptions -- they're helpful 
background for the WG -- as long as they're just that, i think they're fine

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Yeah, I don't feel that strongly.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I think communicating them is fine.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:They just feel slightly weird in the Mission.

  Mike O'Connor:Weird is good!  I like weird

  Mike O'Connor:Ah -- the tyranny of Scope

  Mike O'Connor:bad thing

  Alan Greenberg:MIkey, useful thing when you are trying to silence someone. In 
this case we are working on what I think is the core of the MSM and we need to 
get it right, even if within this DT we don't quite preduct the future correctly

  Marika Konings:@Kristina - the PDP Manual defines the process for how to 
request modifications to a PDP WG Charter, but no specific process is defined 
for a non-PDP WG. As per other non-PDP WG decisions, my assumptions is that any 
changes to the charter would need to be adopted by a simple majority.

  Marika Konings:and would need to come from the WG via the Council liaison

  Marika Konings:or alternatively, directly from the Council

  Greg Shatan:@Mikey: Reminds me of a tech project I worked on where one  guy's 
job was to yell "scope" whenever we got too ambitious....

  Mike O'Connor:Scope!

  Mike O'Connor:that was me!

  Mike O'Connor:insert the word "appropriately" before multi-stakeholder and 
see where we get

  Marika Konings:The fourth point actually came from Avri during our last 
meeting I believe

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Correct.

  Mike O'Connor:that's Kristina's suggestion

  Kristina Rosette:Well, Jordyn's suggestion to address my concern

  Marika Konings:or at least this version

 Kristina Rosette:appropriately multi-stakeholder

  Mike O'Connor:how about "should have the appropriate level of 
multi-stakeholder input."  ?

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I like Mikey's language more.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Not sure if it would satisfy Greg.

  Alan Greenberg:I would not restrict this to INPUT

  Mike O'Connor:accepted as friendly

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:"if any" is fine, too.

  Kristina Rosette:I think we should say "if any"

  Kristina Rosette:yes

  Alan Greenberg:WHO IS PUTTING DOWN HANDS??????

  Mike O'Connor:i am -- 'cause i don't like you

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:(or we could just get rid of the Key Assumptions...)

  Mike O'Connor:we're bodering on doing WG group work here.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:And use them to shape the rest of our work

  Mike O'Connor:how about "participation"?

  Mike O'Connor:instead of "input"

  Marika Konings:@Alan - none of us are putting down hands. Maybe an AC bug?

  Alan Greenberg:Certainly could be. I have seen that happen in other meetings, 
but I shouldn't presume today's people are doing that. Mea culpa.

  Greg Shatan:Need hands-free communication....

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:That's what I was going to suggest too.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:It seems to me what we are really talking about here is 
"What is the proper procedure when the GNSO disagrees with staff implementation 
of Board-adopted policy?"  I am not certain that all this charter language 
really says anything different from this one question.  Obviously if staff 
implements, they think it is implementation and not policy.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:And also kick the "whether to split up Mission #3 to the 
list" as well

  ebw:my concern with "appropriately multistakeholder" is that 
"multistakeholder" is context dependent. it means one thing within the gnso, 
another within the {gnso/aso/ccnso}, and still another within the {so/ac} 
contexts.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Let's wordsmith on the list.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I think we're not that far off of some words that will 
make everyone happy.

  ebw:@jordyn. fine.

  Alan Greenberg:Eric, the reality is that stakeholders do exceed those in the 
formal GNSO structure. The GAC is a good example. To ignore their existance is 
to play ostrich.

  ebw:@alan your point is that "multistakeholder" means the same thing 
everywhere?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:AGree with Alan on this.

  Mike O'Connor:there's another set below

  Mike O'Connor:look at the next page

  Kristina Rosette:above and below.

  Mike O'Connor:Task 4

  Greg Shatan:herein instead of below....

  Mike O'Connor:yeah, that works

  Mike O'Connor:but there ARE some questions "below" that Holly has missed

  Kristina Rosette:Marika:  Can you please let me know on the list what are the 
"best practices created by the GNSO"?  I didn't know of any.  Don't need to 
address here.  On the list is A-OK.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I think they are great!

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:('Cause I wrote them)

  Kristina Rosette:How do Mikey's "thought questions" fit into this?

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Maybe in Task #4?

  Marika Konings:@Kristina - some WGs have recommended best practices 
recommendations that were adopted by the GNSO Council, but currently there is 
no real process for doing anything with those 'best practices' apart from 
noting them or promoting them.

  Marika Konings:I think PEDNR had a few of those if I am not mistaken.

  Kristina Rosette:@Mikey:  OK. That sounds like a helpful way forward.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Maybe for Task #4, phrase it as something like:  "Consider 
WG responses to key questions including, but not limited to:"

  Marika Konings:those usually fall in the category where the WG doesn't 
believe it is appropriate to have it in the form of a consensus policy (it may 
not be in scope), but it neverthelese believes it is a helfpul thing to do. 
There was an initiative on looking further at this (best practices to address 
abuse) but the GNSO Council decided not to take that any further.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Greg's proposal is fine with me.

  Mike O'Connor:i could work those 3 existing questions into the pile that i 
already have

  Mike O'Connor:yeah -- good catch greg

  Kristina Rosette:Ah. I get it.  Have 4th recommendation track whatever we did 
to the corresponding "key assumption"

  Mike O'Connor:yup

  ebw:yup

  Greg Shatan:In 4th recommendation, add "appropriate" before 
"multi-stakeholder"

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:We could add the parenthetical as a footnote or something.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:It's just there to provide context about what the first 
half means.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Er, the first sentence means.

  Mike O'Connor:Somebody's typing with their mic turned on.  really fast!

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Proposed text:  Provide a clearer understanding of the 
potential goals, end states and alternatives to the PDP.

  Mike O'Connor:no

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:We can draft on the list.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:My sentence isn't actually grammatical.

  Mike O'Connor:i like Jordyn's better

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:REally like the phrase "alternatives to the PDP" because 
it's clear that these processes are needed.

  Mike O'Connor:ah that's true

  Mike O'Connor:i really DON'T like that

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I can take a hack at redrafting it later.

  Mike O'Connor:we're heading into the weeds with "alternatives to the PDP"

  Mike O'Connor:yes!

  Mike O'Connor:+1 Alan

  Kristina Rosette:If we're talking about alternatives, aren't we talking about 
altermative outcomes to a PDP other than policy recommendations or "we've tried 
to develop policy recommendations and can't. we're done"?

  Mike O'Connor:there's this "policy guidance" thing in Marika's work paper - 
we need to understand what that is

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:What if policy has to be developed in the course of 
implementation and you don't have time for a PDP?  I note for example the 
Public Interest Commitments Dispute REsolution Procedure, which is clearly 
policy that has never been through a PDP and probably should do.

  Mike O'Connor:agree Anne -- i'm working about babies and bathwater

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Where baby = policy and bathwater = implementation, I 
assume : ) Anne

  Mike O'Connor:LOL -

  Mike O'Connor:i'm liking this "definitional" direction we're going

  Mike O'Connor:+1 Jordyn/Greg

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Agree that Board must review any and all GNSO "Policy 
Guidance" since only the Board can adopt Policy according to the By-Laws.

  Mike O'Connor:I'm a little edgy about letting the *COUNCIL* do much policy 
making -- guiding the process, yes.  making?  no

  Mike O'Connor:10 minutes remaining

  Mike O'Connor:let's no go there

  Marika Konings:manager of the policy process is the politically correct term 
I believe ;-)

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Let me working on some language for this.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan::-)

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I think I understand the range of concerns.

  Marika Konings:We are trying to do a better job of tracking PDPs (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active), but please send us any 
suggestions on how we can improve this.

  Mike O'Connor:good item for the WG

  Mike O'Connor:he's stepped away

  Mike O'Connor:that's not a hand

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Suggestion that I shudder to think about:  maybe we should 
schedule two calls for next week?

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:One on Monday and one on Wednesday?

  Mike O'Connor:@Jordyn, i'm not sure we're gonna need ti -- i think we're 
pretty close

  Mike O'Connor:expecially if we crank it on the list

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:We can always cancel the second call.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I don't feel that strongly.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:THe consequences of failing to resolve everything next 
Monday are fairly dire, though.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Marika, Can you send along a clean version when you send 
the redline, please?

  Marika Konings:@Anne - yes, will do

  Greg Shatan:Should we schedule for 2 hours on Monday?

  Mike O'Connor:Wednesday is tough

  Mike O'Connor:Thursday?

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:I think sometimes we need to digest between calls to do 
stuff like drafting.

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:We'

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:We'll lose tons of people on Thursday, I suspect.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:No on two hours

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Friday is slightly more likely.

  Kristina Rosette:2 one-hour meetings is easier for me.

  Eduardo Diaz:two one hour meetings

  Mike O'Connor:Friday's ok

  Jill Titzer:2 one hour

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:Two one hour meetings.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:2 one hour is more productive

  David Cake:this is just about the worst possible time for me, so earlier is 
fine

  Mike O'Connor:2 one hour gives us the fallback

  Mike O'Connor:Friday, Cheryl?

  ebw:i prefer 2 x 1hr, with time and email between.

  Marika Konings:Sorry, I got disconnected

  Kristina Rosette:earlier is fine with me too

  Greg Shatan:I prefer one two-hour meeting.  The IGO/INGO WG goes for 2 hours. 
 I find that more productive.  No ramp up time....

  Marika Konings:What about 1,5 hour on Monday and have a backup call scheduled 
for another day that week (we can do a doodle poll?)

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:+1 Doodle

  Jill Titzer:+1 doodle

  Eduardo Diaz:+1

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:AGree with Marka

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:(and agree with Marika)

  Kristina Rosette:like marika's idea

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:And the goal should be to finish on Monday.

  Mike O'Connor:yes!

  Jordyn A. Buchanan:With the latter meeting just held on calendars in case.

  Mike O'Connor:we'll need it

  Mike O'Connor:but set the goal for Monday

  Jill Titzer:that sounds good

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thank you, everyone!  Have a good week.  Anne

  Eduardo Diaz:bye

  Mike O'Connor:yes, doodle right away.

  Mike O'Connor:hasty lumbago

  ebw:really?

  Jill Titzer:talk with everyone on Monday

  ebw:what are your failure sysmtoms?

  Mike O'Connor:bad mouse?

  Mike O'Connor:update drivers?

  ebw:how does ubuntu/debian/linux relevant to what sounds like a link 
problem???

  Mike O'Connor:it's just flash

  Mike O'Connor:verizon?

  Mike O'Connor:wrong folks

  Mike O'Connor:awwww

  Mike O'Connor:little fiddle

  Mike O'Connor::-)

  Mike O'Connor:awww

  Mike O'Connor:tootle