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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have been overly pre-occupied on other matters 
over the last few days, so I am opening a new 
thread here with some trepidation. Perhaps this 
has already been thrashed over and is cast in concrete. I hope not.
The prescribed Rec 2 reads:

2. 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;
This makes it sound as if "Policy Guidance" 
(whatever that is), but it sounds far weaker than 
"policy development" (note the lower case p and 
d). The current Bylaws explicitly allow the GNSO 
to use methods other than the PDP for create 
policy that is not meant to be a Consensus Policy.
I would suggest that #2 be less proscriptive and read:

2. A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps 
in the form of "Policy Guidance", including 
criteria for when it would be appropriate to use 
such a process instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process;
That makes it clear that we are not intending to 
create a "Policy Guidance" process that is the 
sole option to a PDP, which would reduce the 
flexibility of the GNSO over what is allowed 
today. And incidentally, a flexibility which was 
very explicitly included in the Bylaws by Jeff's PDP Drafting Team.
Alan



At 02/07/2013 11:13 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> Per Holly's email, please find attached an 
> updated version of the charter, incorporating 
> the edits as proposed by Holly as well as a 
> revised motion for your review. Please use these 
> versions for any further edits / comments you may have.
> Thanks,
>
> Marika
>
> From: Holly Raiche 
> <<mailto:h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday 2 July 2013 16:49
> To: 
> "<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" 
> <<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
>
> Hi Everyone
>
> In the interests of my sleep, I am making an 
> executive decision to adopt Chuck's wording of 
> question 4 (based on the reasoning that has been expressed), as follows:
> 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?
> The other suggestion I will accept is the 
> suggestion to amend the motion (made by Chuck) 
> giving a time line of 7 days for a response.
> Marika - would you please make those two changes.
>
> That done, we still do not need the next call (and I can sleep)
>
> Thanks
>
> Holly
>
>
>
> On 02/07/2013, at 10:54 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > The reason I added the last qualification is 
> > because of what Mikey said in his response to 
> > my suggested wording:  The Board is in the 
> > habit of asking the GNSO Council for advice 
> > with a short deadline and then treating it as a 
> > broader GNSO position.  I think that is 
> > inappropriate on the part of the Board but the reality is that it happens.
> > At the same, time I wouldn't object if that 
> > qualifier was deleted as Wolf suggests.
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 
> > <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 4:05 AM
> > To: Holly Raiche; 
> > <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Marika Konings
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> >
> >
> > Good morning!
> >
> > I'm fine with Chuck's rewording except for the 
> > last part "... as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?".
> > I'm convinced that a discussion about the role 
> > of the council vs (and of) the GNSO is 
> > necessary and urgent but I wonder whether this 
> > debate may overload the WG mandate.
> > It should definitely be discussed during the coming GNSO review.
> >
> > My suggestion to question 4: "Under what 
> > circumstances, if any, may  the GNSO Council 
> > make recommendations or state positions to the Board?"
> > Nevertheless I would join any wording which 
> > makes early mornings in Down Under more convenient :-)
> > Best regards
> >
> > Wolf-Ulrich
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > From: Holly Raiche
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 8:50 AM
> > To: <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Marika Konings
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> >
> > Folks
> >
> > If there is one thing I do NOT want to do, it 
> > is have another 5.00am meeting in two days time 
> > (particularly since I have a 1.00am call that morning!)
> > SOOooo
> >
> > From what I have gathered from the emails, 
> > there are really only two changes to the 
> > charter that Marika sent out (and thank you 
> > Marika for the very quick turn around)
> > The first is really wording - first spotted by 
> > Eduardo and then cleaned up a bit
> > The other was question 4 - and from the emails, 
> > I think people are happy to go with ChucK's rewording of it.
> > I have incorporated those changes only into a 
> > clean copy - and what I want from everyone is 
> > either confirmation that this is what can go 
> > forward, or not (and if not, please, what do 
> > you want changed - with proposed wording - and 
> > why)  Otherwise, if I don't hear from you, this is what we proceed with
> > And thank you one and all for your time, diligence and patience
> >
> > Holly