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

[David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would be beyond the WG charter, IMO, to attempt to fully determine new 
processes, but it would be very appropriate for the WG to suggest new processes 
that it thinks would be useful. 
Regards

David

On 03/07/2013, at 5:08 PM, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Agree that if the WG does not delve into suggested new processes, it will be 
> a philosophy club - of snails. Can anyone draw the cartoon? I am not 
> artistically gifted. Anne
> 
> Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
> Received: Wednesday, 03 Jul 2013, 7:34am
> To: Shatan, Gregory S. [GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]; Gomes, Chuck 
> [cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]; Rosette, Kristina [krosette@xxxxxxx]; Marika Konings 
> [marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]; Holly Raiche 
> [h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx];gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
> 
> 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 Alan̢۪s 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: 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; 
>> gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter
>>  
>> I support Alan̢۪s revision witwith Kristina̢۪s 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)
>> gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> www.reedsmith.com 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: 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; 
>> 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 Alan̢۪s 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: 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>
>> Date: Tuesday 2 July 2013 16:49
>> To: " gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx" < gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Marika Konings <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] On Behalf Of WUKnoben
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 4:05 AM
>> To: Holly Raiche; 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
>> 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
> 
> 
>  
> 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.