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

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxx>]

This seems right but I have to admit I am personally far less interested in 
seeing the WG debate ""What is policy?" and "What is implemenation?"  than in 
seeing if members can figure out practical ways for GNSO to have continuing 
input in real time without disrupting the multi-stakeholder model.  Obviously a 
mechanism must be developed for such real time input to be received from the 
GAC as well and that is in another WG.  The good thing about the ICANN process 
is the multi-stakeholder nature of the process. The bad thing is the extreme 
sluggishness of the process. ( If any of us had Internet access this slow, we 
would find another provider. )

Of course my own view is that Fadi made some very wise choices that enabled the 
commmunity to "get on with it."  This includes the 50 abused names.which the 
Board views as implementation.  I also note that the Registry Agreement 
includes a provision allowing 100 reserved names that "trump"  TMCH Sunrise 
eligibility notwithstanding the fact that  (as far as I know) this was not 
mentioned in the process of TMCH implementation. and could easily be viewed as 
a question requiring mult-stakeholder input through means other than public 
comment.  I can tell you it's a bit dicey telling clients that not only is it 
possibile that all they will get for their TMCH registration might be an 
invitation to bid in the SDRP but in fact not even that if their trademark 
happens to be one of the "reserved names."

So far the CSG has not written to the ICANN Board on the topic of a violation 
of Article 2.2 of the By-Laws as a result of the decision to allow 100 reserved 
names to trump the TMCH Sunrise process.  (I might have suggested 50 reserved 
names.)  My question is whether the availability of these reserved names will 
in fact result in a private auction that precedes the SDRP described in each 
application.  (If I am wrong and the 100 resered names provision has been 
deleted from the Registry Agreement, let me know.)

The point here is not to pour salt in open wounds.   The  point is that it is 
inevitable that decisions will have to be made after the formal policy-making 
process is complete and even after Implementation Review Teams have finished 
their work.  I don't think anyone suggested reconvening the TMCH IRT to review 
these issues of 50 abused names and 100 reserved names, but maybe they should 
have?

I have only been involved with ICANN since May of 2010 and I am sure there are 
veterans on this list who will disagree with the above views, but I guess 
that's what the multistakeholder process is all about.  If the WG wants to take 
a look at an issue that is going to demand a better process in real time, it 
can use the topic of "exclusive access to generic string registries".as a 
hypothetical.

But I digress from the Charter at hand, which looks good.  Congratulations to 
all for your tenacity and to Holly for "herding the cats."
Anne

[X]Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
Lewis and Roca LLP • Suite 700
One South Church Avenue • Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
Tel (520) 629-4428 • Fax (520) 879-4725
AAikman@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxx> • 
www.LewisandRoca.com/Aikman<http://www.lewisandroca.com/Aikman>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail contains legally privileged and confidential information
intended only for the individual or entity named within the message.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is prohibited.  If this communication
was received in error, please notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original 
message.


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 2:43 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; krosette@xxxxxxx; 
marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx; h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx; alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

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<mailto: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<http://www.nitrodesk.com>)

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]
Received: Wednesday, 03 Jul 2013, 7:34am
To: Shatan, Gregory S. [GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]; 
Gomes, Chuck [cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]; Rosette, 
Kristina [krosette@xxxxxxx<mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx>]; Marika Konings 
[marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]; Holly Raiche 
[h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:h.raiche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>];gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
 [gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<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<mailto: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> [ 
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<mailto: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<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com/>



From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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> [ 
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<mailto: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







* * *
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<http://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.




________________________________

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 
www.lewisandroca.com<http://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.