RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed Agenda - Next Policy & Implementation WG Meeting

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On my way to Buenos Aires, I reviewed the Draft ATRT2 GNSO PDP Evaluation Study 
and found a couple things that I think are relevant to the P&I WG.

The report is in Appendix A  of the ATRT2 Draft Report & Recommendations:  
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-21oct13-en.htm
 .

I want to call attention to next to last paragraph on page 8 of Appendix A in 
Section 3.8 of Appendix A:

"Note that the implementation is not included as one of the essential elements 
of the PDP.  Implementation is, however, included in Section 10 of Annex A.  
The Bylaws, therefore, appear to suggest that implementation can be an element 
of a PDP, but that implementation is not essential to a PDP.  Note, too, that 
compliance, which was included in Stage 5 of the PDP Work Team's five-phase 
review of the PDP, is also not included as an essential element of the PDP."

*         My first comment is this:  I disagree that "implementation is not 
essential to a PDP" and, if the Bylaws suggest otherwise, then  ink we should 
consider recommending a change in that regard.

*         We also may want to consider recommending that implementation be 
included as an essential element of the PDP although implementation processes 
may differ from policy development processes.

*         I do not think that compliance should be a part of the PDP although 
it seems appropriate for a PDP to consider whether any recommendations are 
enforceable.

Section 4.2 of Appendix A also deals with a topic that seems to relate to what 
we are tasked with.  What caught my attention was a definition of 
multi-stakeholder processes that was taken from a book titled Multi-Stakeholder 
Processes For Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict (see 
footnote 17 on page 24 of Appendix A).  Here is the definition as found on 
pages 23-24:

"The term multi-stakeholder processes describes processes which aim to bring 
together all major stakeholders in a new form of communication, 
decision-finding (and possibly decision-making) on a particular issue.  They 
are also based on recognition of the importance of achieving equity and 
accountability in communication between stakeholders, involving equitable 
representation of three or more stakeholder groups and their views.  They are 
based on democratic principles of transparency and participation, and aim to 
develop partnerships and strengthened networks among stakeholders."

*         Assuming that we agree that both policy development and policy 
implementation should involve multi-stakeholder processes, it seems to me that 
we may want to include a definition of multi-stakeholder processes along with 
the other terms we are defining.

*         If so, then I think that the definition above is a good place to 
start, although I will leave that up to the Definitions Sub-team for now.

If we talk about multi-stakeholder processes in our work, we might also want to 
discuss how 'bottom-up processes' relate to 'multi-stakeholder processes'.  
Should they be connected?  Does bottom-up apply to both policy development and 
policy implementation.

I welcome discussion and in particular ask the Definitions Sub-team to consider 
adding 'multi-stakeholder processes' to our list of definitions.

Chuck (on my way to Buenos Aires)

From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 12:40 PM
To: mcubberley
Cc: Gnosis IP Law & Consulting; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed Agenda - Next Policy & 
Implementation WG Meeting

Mauren, I'm very sorry to hear about your ankle. Please don't worry about the 
call, I'm sure that one of the other sub-team members is able to provide the 
update should you not be able to make it.

All, please find attached the latest version of the definitions document. Do 
note that this is still work in progress - as a matter of fact, several 
comments were submitted earlier today which the sub-team still needs to review.

With best regards,

Marika

From: mcubberley <mcubberley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mcubberley@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 13 November 2013 18:28
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Gnosis IP Law & Consulting 
<gnosisiplaw@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnosisiplaw@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed Agenda - Next Policy & 
Implementation WG Meeting

Marika and Michael,

Sorry, I missed this. I broke my ankle in a rather complex way Monday afternoon 
.... something I really did not need right now :-/.....and have been back and 
forth between doctors and the hospital ever since. I have another appointment 
at 1pm today and plan to be home in time for the 20:00 utc (3pm Eastern) 
meeting today, assuming there are no further complications to deal with.

I have not had a chance to look at the revised document, but I am sure it 
reflects our discussions so please go ahead and circulate it.

If for some reason I am unable to participate in the meeting, perhaps you two 
could take the lead, and I think Wolf-Ulrich would help too.

Sorry about this, but my schedule is at the mercy of the physicians and their 
not-always-helpful assistants! (Some day we must chat about Canadian health 
care :)

Best regards,
Maureen

Maureen Cubberley
+1.705.382.3841
+1.705.718.5723

On 2013-11-12, at 3:18 AM, Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Michael,

An updated version was sent to the sub-team yesterday for review and 
discussion. As soon as Maureen indicates that it is ready for broader 
distribution, I will of course do so.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Gnosis IP Law & Consulting 
<gnosisiplaw@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnosisiplaw@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday 11 November 2013 22:48
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed Agenda - Next Policy & 
Implementation WG Meeting

Marika:

I presume you will also post the Draft Definitions to the Working Group when 
the revisions are completed?

Michael R.

On Nov 11, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Policy & Implementation 
Working Group meeting (Wednesday 13 November 2013).

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda Policy & Implementation Working Group Meeting - 13 November 
2013 (20.00 UTC)

  1.  Roll call / SOI
  2.  Update from Work Plan Sub-Team (Michael)
  3.  Update from Definitions Sub-Team (Maureen)
  4.  Formation of sub-team 0B - next steps
  5.  Review update to GNSO Council presentation (see proposed slides attached)
  6.  Planning for BA - proposed agenda:

     *   Introductions
     *   Finalise / sign off on work plan
     *   Discussion of questions (see attachment for latest version)

  1.  Next steps / confirm next meeting

<Updated PI WG questions 31 Oct.doc><Policy Implementation Update - Updated 11 
November 2013.ppt>