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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina, the parenthetical could well be added 
and would likely be helpful for those who do not 
spend their days reading the ICANN Bylaws in 
excruciating detail (the intro to Annex A in this 
case), something that sadly I have been doing this week.
Alan

At 02/07/2013 05:04 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> 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 
> <<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