Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] Updated version of Policy & Implementation WG Charter - Holly's comments
hi all, thanks for your comments Chuck. Marika folded these questions into her revised draft. as i read that section of the report, i'm thinking that whole section could use a rewrite to make it flow better. i'll take a run at that, but probably won't get to it until Thursday -- so if anybody wants to take a pass at it beforehand, that would be great. we can work Chuck's ideas into that next draft. i don't think there are a lot of substantive changes to the section, it's just that it's showing the wear and tear of several different drafts and authors. mikey On Jun 24, 2013, at 6:42 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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.) > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|