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

[Michael graham <gnosisiplaw@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck:

Excellent research in transit.  I agree that implementation should be 
considered part of the process of developing and carrying out policy.  Either 
the definition of PDP needs to include this or, more appropriately perhaps, 
Another term needs
To be developed which understands that both Policy Development (as PDP) and 
Implementation need to be viewed as part of the entire process which is Policy 
AND Implementation, and both need to be accomplished in reference to the other. 
 

Michael R Graham
Sent from my mobile phone.

> On Nov 15, 2013, at 12:41 PM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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>
> Date: Wednesday 13 November 2013 18:28
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Gnosis IP Law & Consulting <gnosisiplaw@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <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> 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>
> Date: Monday 11 November 2013 22:48
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <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> 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)
> Roll call / SOI  
> Update from Work Plan Sub-Team (Michael)
> Update from Definitions Sub-Team (Maureen)
> Formation of sub-team 0B – next steps
> Review update to GNSO Council presentation (see proposed slides attached)
> Planning for BA – proposed agenda:
> Introductions
> Finalise / sign off on work plan
> Discussion of questions (see attachment for latest version)
> Next steps / confirm next meeting
>  
> <Updated PI WG questions 31 Oct.doc><Policy Implementation Update - Updated 
> 11 November 2013.ppt>
>