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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mikey.  Please see my responses below.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 8:13 AM
To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation WG 
Charter - Holly's comments


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?[Chuck Gomes]

        What are the consequences of an action being considered "policy" vs. 
"implementation?[Chuck Gomes]  I am not sure how useful this question is 
without some context.  It is easily answered in the current context of how the 
BGC considered the question, i.e., the concluded that they do whatever they 
want if something is implementation. But many in the GNSO think that is not 
appropriate.  I think the next question is more useful.

        Why does it matter if something is "policy" or "implementation"?[Chuck 
Gomes]  I think this is a useful questions.

        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)?[Chuck Gomes]  Could be useful.

        Can we answer these questions so the definitions of "policy" and 
"implementation" matter less, if at all?[Chuck Gomes]  I think this has some 
potential value.

    What options are available for policy and implementation efforts and what 
are the criteria for determining which should be used?[Chuck Gomes]  Should 
this be two questions? 1) criteria for each; 2) what options for each - 
although, I am not sure what this is asking.

        Are policy and implementation on a spectrum rather than binary?[Chuck 
Gomes]  I like this a lot.
        What are the flavors of "policy" and what consequences should attach to 
each flavor?[Chuck Gomes]  Probably useful.  What is meant by consequences?  
Probably should be clarified.
        What happens if you change those consequences?

    Who determines the choice between whether something is policy or 
implementation?[Chuck Gomes]  Important question (s).

        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)?  [Chuck Gomes]  +
        What is the role of the GNSO vs. the GNSO Council in setting 
policy?[Chuck Gomes]  As previously communicated, I think Kristina is right on 
this.  It is already answered in the Bylaws.
        What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?[Chuck Gomes]  Critical 
question.
        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?[Chuck Gomes]  Critical question.
        Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to 
facilitate continuity of the MSM process that already occurred?
[Chuck Gomes] Good question, as previously noted.


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.)