RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

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

Here we are at the heart of the matter. And do we mean "the GNSO" or "the GNSO 
Council" when we speak of such possible recommendations?

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Shatan, Gregory S. [GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Received: Tuesday, 02 Jul 2013, 7:28am
To: 'David Cake' [dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]; Mike O'Connor [mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
CC: Tim Ruiz [tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]; Gomes, Chuck [cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]; Marika 
Konings [marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

I think we are starting to get far afield from the issues of policy and 
implementation.  I don’t think that statements made by the GNSO Council (or 
some subset of the GNSO Council) on issues other than policy or implementation 
are germane to this WG.  (There are some fascinating issues around when and how 
the GNSO Council may make statements and whether they should be consensus or 
majority rule and whether they should go through some multistakeholder process 
other than within the GNSO Council, and what weight, credence or deference 
should be given to such statements, but I don’t think they are issues for this 
WG.  A GNSO governance WG or study maybe….)

Getting back to Tim’s original re-working of the language, he said:

Got it. So what I meant was recommend - Under what circumstances, if any, may 
the GNSO recommend policy?" keeping in mind that it is policy in the general 
sense so may include but is not necessarily limited to Consensus Policy. At any 
rate, I do agree that we aren't missing anything if we delete the question 
altogether.

I think this touches on the “alternatives to PDP” question we were discussing 
today.  Maybe the question should be “Under what circumstances, if any, other 
than as a result of a PDP, may the GNSO recommend policy?”  Right now, I think 
the answer is “none” (at least as to Consensus Policy, and at least as to 
“recommendations” of other types of policy).  I suppose the way to change that 
answer is to have alternatives to the full PDP process.  This comes back to 
another theme – what is “policy” and how many flavors (consensus, rocky road, 
cow pie) does it come in?

Greg

From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 12:15 AM
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: Tim Ruiz; Gomes, Chuck; Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

That wording seems unclear to me. The GNSO council may state positions to the 
board on things other than policy or implementation (such as procedure, or 
anything the board asks it to weigh in on), and while the GNSO Council does 
strive for consensus where possible, it certainly sometimes does state a 
position quite explicitly not representing the GNSO as a whole (such as stating 
a majority council opinion but noting dissent of a particular constituency).

David
On 02/07/2013, at 11:11 AM, "Mike O'Connor" 
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


sorry to come in so late -- but i agree as well.  Chuck's points about the role 
of the Council are great, and i think this wording is much better.

m

On Jul 1, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>> 
wrote:


Yes, that is much better.

On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:03 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Got it.  Thanks Tim.  Maybe we could word it something like this:  “Under what 
circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO Council make recommendations or state 
positions to the Board as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?”

Chuck

From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 6:56 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Tim Ruiz; Marika Konings; 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: For final review - proposed WG Charter

Got it. So what I meant was recommend - Under what circumstances, if any, may 
the GNSO recommend policy?" keeping in mind that it is policy in the general 
sense so may include but is not necessarily limited to Consensus Policy. At any 
rate, I do agree that we aren't missing anything if we delete the question 
altogether.

Tim


On Jul 1, 2013, at 6:50 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I like that wording better Tim but I think the answer is still the same.  At 
the same time, maybe there is some value in the WG finding this out for 
themselves.

Chuck

From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 6:48 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Marika Konings; 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: For final review - proposed WG Charter

I am ok with both of those changes, but I wonder if the intent of the 4.c 
question was "Under what circumstances, if any, may the GNSO establish policy?"

Tim

On Jul 1, 2013, at 6:41 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Thanks Marika for the quick delivery of these documents.  And thanks to 
everyone for the excellent work.

I think the proposed charter looks really good but I did come up with one 
possible issue and one minor edit.

Under ‘The WG may find the following questions helpful for completing the 
work:’ on page 3 of the clean version, where did question 4.c come from:  
“Under what circumstances, if any, may the GNSO Council establish policy?”  It 
seems to me that we already know the answer to this: None.  The Bylaws are 
clear that the Council is a policy management body and not a policy making 
body.  It is the Council’s role to 1) manage PDPs, ensuring that applicable 
process is followed and that all impacted stakeholders have opportunity to 
contribute according to the GNSO WG Guidelines; 2) make recommendations to the 
Board regarding consensus policies and/or other policies or best practices.  
The Bylaws make it clear that it is only the Board that may establish policy.  
I see no usefulness in asking the WG to answer this question because the answer 
is already known, so I suggest deleting it.

I also think a minor edit is needed in Deliverable 4 on page 5 of the clean 
version: “WG conclusions with regard to how ICANN Core Values relate to policy 
and implementation efforts and whether the identified core values apply 
differently to policy development work than to implementation of policy”

Chuck

From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 4:32 PM
To: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

Dear All,

Please find attached for final review the latest version of the WG Charter 
which includes the edits discussed today. To facilitate your review, you'll 
find attached a clean as well as a redline version.

Please share any comments / edits you may have with the mailing list at the 
latest by 23.59 UTC on Tuesday 2 July.

Based on the feedback received at that point, we'll decide whether or not to go 
ahead with the meeting on Wednesday 3 July at 19.00 UTC.

The proposed motion will follow tomorrow.

Best regards,

Marika


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://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



________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.