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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"designing" them, is, in my mind, not the job of this WG

+1

On Jul 3, 2013, at 1:34 AM, "Alan Greenberg" 
<alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

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<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