RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For your review - Updated Charter & Doodle poll

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Again, I also believe that timing is critical.  As a practical matter in terms 
of organizational effectiveness, I think that the WG can spend hours and hours 
debating what is policy and what is implementation where in fact this is the 
wrong question to be asking.  The right question actually is what mechanism 
does GNSO need in order to have immediate input into implementation which it 
believes is counter to GNSO policy recommendations?  The existing operating 
procedures say letter from GNSO to the Board.  Jeff Neuman says amendment to 
By-Laws requiring Board to come back to GNSO if implementation conflicts with a 
"GNSO position", which would also need to be defined.

Frankly I think it will prove a huge black hole to debate what is policy and 
what is implementation.   In fact what some members in the GNSO want (and the 
reason for the request) is more power to deal with implementation issues.  
However, we do not state in the assumptions that it should and we do not direct 
the Working Group to examine this question.

Having said that, I think we are at the point of debating Working Group issues 
and agree with Mikey (or whoever observed in the last call) that we don't have 
to make many more changes to the Charter in order to finalize.
Anne


Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx • www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:45 AM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For your review - Updated Charter & Doodle 
poll


Marika,

Page 1, Sectio II, Key assumptions third bulleted phrase:

The word choice is unnecessarily binary, suggesting there is only one policy 
(possibly true) and only one implementation (unlikely to be true). I suggest 
that the word choice should reflect a spectrum of difference(s).

Page 2, first blocked section, 4th numbered item:

The word choice is unnecessarily achronological, a "policy" at some point in 
time may be an "implementation choice" at a prior point in time, e.g., the flow 
from "some new gTLDs" to "7-10 new gtlds" to "7-10 sponsored and open new 
gtlds" to "contract and delegation for {aero,biz,coop,info,museum,name,pro}" to 
"registrar exceptions for {aero,coop,museum}". I suggest that the word choice 
should reflect the role of time in the framing of whether something is "policy" 
or "implementation".

Eric


----------------------
For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com.

Phoenix (602)262-5311                           Reno (775)823-2900
Tucson (520)622-2090                            Albuquerque (505)764-5400
Las Vegas (702)949-8200                     Silicon Valley (650)391-1380

  This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended 
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying 
to the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
  In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that 
if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or 
written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of 
avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer