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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I like Alan's suggested revision.  Do we need to be explicit that we 
acknowledge the requirement that consensus policy be developed through the PDP?

Suggested revision:  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 (for developing policy other than consensus policy) instead 
of a GNSO Policy Development Process.


From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 4:32 PM
To: Marika Konings; Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

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 < 
h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday 2 July 2013 16:49
To: " gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" < 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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; 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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: gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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