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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

right, Chuck.  my concern is that the Board creates an incorrect option for 
policy-making -- something along the lines of "we need a decision quickly, 
let's ask the Council to opine on this urgent policy matter *instead* of the 
GNSO" and then the Council makes the mistake of accepting an assignment that is 
outside their role.

to Wolf-Urich's point, i think the WG can gently touch this issue during it's 
work, and remind the Council of the boundaries of its authority, without 
getting terribly derailed.  that's why i like Chuck's refinement of the 
language.  the WG is going to be focused primarily on the (broader) GNSO.  but 
on this particular topic, i think we want some thought and clarification on the 
role of the Council.

mikey


On Jul 2, 2013, at 7:30 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Anne,
>  
> While I think a good principle is to generally speak of the GNSO as a whole 
> instead of just the Council, I think in this case we are talking about the 
> Council.  I believe that the thrust of the question we are discussing has to 
> do with Council actions such as when the Board requests advice from the 
> Council on specific issues.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 8:25 AM
> To: dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mike@xxxxxxxxxx; GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; 
> gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
>  
> 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> 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> wrote:
>  
> 
> Yes, that is much better.
> 
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:03 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <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
> 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> 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
> 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> 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] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 4:32 PM
> To: 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, 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.
> 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.


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)