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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Greg, I think the concern (certainly mine) is 
that if we try to define any process in details, 
it will become the tail wagging the dog, so to 
speak. The Work Team that defined the PDP took 
over 2 years to complete the task. We had a basic 
structure to work from, but it was hard work 
nonetheless. Identifying possible processes is 
fine. "designing" them, is, in my mind, not the job of this WG.
Alan

At 02/07/2013 08:03 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> I think that the WG should give consideration to 
> processes, and recommendations about potential 
> processes.  Without some attention to what 
> processes would look like, the WG’s advice could become terribly abstract.
> I suppose this in itself is a “policy vs. 
> implementation” or “policy into implementation” debate!
> Also, if the WG does not give consideration to 
> processes, who will?  Another WG (heaven 
> forfend)? The GNSO Council? Staff? Some other 
> form of multistakeholder team/group?
> I don’t think the WG will have the last word 
> on processes (there is much to be done to make a 
> process real in ICANN-land), but they should 
> have something to say and be able to say 
> it.  Otherwise, the WG risks becoming a philosophy club.
> Greg
>
> From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 7:55 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Shatan, Gregory S.; Rosette, 
> Kristina; Marika Konings; Holly Raiche; gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
>
> Chuck, I am not at all convinced that the WG 
> should be designing new processes. In fact, I 
> would oppose it. But I came into this discussion 
> late and did not have the time to review all of 
> the postings or the calls I missed, so I was 
> trying to make sure the recommendation didn't do 
> harm, not that I supported the overall intent.
> Alan
>
> At 02/07/2013 07:29 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> I can live with Alan’s change wi with the 
> parenthetical suggested by Kristina, which I 
> think is essential.  I have some fear that this 
> item might get some push back in the GNSO but we 
> can let it be dealt with by the Council if that 
> is the case. Alan will be there to make his case.
> I am still not sure that the Policy & 
> Implementation group should be designing 
> processes but if there is broad support for 
> this, that might be okay, especially if it helps 
> us accomplish the main objective of providing 
> guidance about how to handle policy and implementation of policy.
> Chuck
>
> From: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [ mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 7:19 PM
> To: 'Alan Greenberg'; Rosette, Kristina; Marika 
> Konings; Holly Raiche; 
> <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
>
> I support Alan’s revision witwith Kristina’s parenthetical.
>
> Greg
> Gregory S. Shatan
> Partner
> Reed Smith LLP
> 599 Lexington Avenue
> New York, NY 10022
> 212.549.0275 (Phone)
> 917.816.6428 (Mobile)
> 212.521.5450 (Fax)
> <mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.reedsmith.com
>
>
>
> From: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [ mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 5:14 PM
> To: Rosette, Kristina; Marika Konings; Holly 
> Raiche; <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
>
> 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 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: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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; 
> <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * * *
> 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