[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 22 January 2014

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please note that the next Policy and Implementation Working Group 
teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 05th March 2014 at 20:00 UTC

Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working group 
call held on Wednesday 22 January 2014 at 20:00 UTC at:


http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20140122-en.mp3

 On page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>jan

 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

Attendees:
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Philip Marano – IPC  (also in for Brian Winterfeldt – IPC)
Michael Graham – IPC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr – ALAC
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
J.Scott Evans – BC
Greg Shatan – IPC
Avri Doria – NCSG
Klaus Stoll - NPOC
Tom Barrett – RrSG
Nic Steinbach – RrSG
Marie-Laure Lemineur – NPOC
Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC
Marie-Laure Lemineur - NPOC
Olga Cavalli – GAC
Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC
Olevie Kouami – NPOC

Apology:
Brian Winterfeldt – IPC
Jonathan Frost – RySG
Krista Papac

ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Marika Konings
Nathalie Peregrine

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **


 Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Nathalie Peregrine
For GNSO Secretariat

Adobe Chat Transcript for Wednesday 22 January 2014:



    Marika Konings:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation WG Meeting of 22 
January 2014

  Marika Konings:Hello Cheryl - a bit early today?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ohh am I my calendar told me to join hmmmm

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:so I have another 50 mind do I?l

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:50 mins

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I'll go have b'fast then. just finished another call

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:this will I fear mean I leave our meeting early as I have 
an interview to do live at 2100 UTC said yes then as I had this call listed as 
starting now... Sorry

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:back later then but only for 1st 45 as I will need to prep 
for the other

  Marika Konings:No problem - enjoy breakfast!

  Mary Wong:What was that?

  Nathalie  Peregrine:am asking the operator

  Chuck Gomes:Waiting for an operator

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Hi everyone

  J. Scott Evans:i have dialed in, but I am not yet connected

  J. Scott Evans:I did speak with an operator

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Noted!

  Kiran Malancharuvil:Finally in, sorry I'm late.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Marie-Laure Lemineur has joined the AC room

  J. Scott Evans:Yes, thank you definitions sub-team

  J. Scott Evans:CAn we make the text bigger on the screen?

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Alan Greenberg has joined the room

  Marika Konings:@J.Scott - you have control. Just use the plus / minus signs 
at the bottom of the pod.

  J. Scott Evans:I just figrured that out, thank you Marika

  Alan Greenberg:and on bridge

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Greg Shatan has also joined

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:do you hear me ?

  Kiran Malancharuvil:we can't hear you Bertrand

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:I'm just on the adobe. will call separately. go ahead

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Bertrand, to activate your mic, please click on the 
telephone icon at the top of the AC room and follow instructions

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:I wanted to say that the definition does not include 
rules, principles, norms, etc...

  Alan Greenberg:Oops, I was really commenting on GNSO Policy!!

  Marika Konings:Bertrand has joined the audio bridge

  Avri Doria:Alan your comment held tru for the first definition as well.

  Avri Doria:the definitons are prolemenatic in their narrow scope.

  Marika Konings:Please do take into account that these are working definitions 
- the idea is that at the end of the WG's deliberations, we may be able to 
update these to 'final' definitions taking into account the WG deliberations 
and recommendations.

  Avri Doria:any action based on policy is determined by the policy and any 
decsion to deveate awat from actions determined by a policy involves, at least 
inmplictly the makeing of new policy.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Olga Cavalii has joined the AC room

  Marika Konings:@Chuck - but we currently do not have a formal process to 
develop 'p'olicies - hence the task of this WG?

  Avri Doria:GNSO can only recommend not create policy

  Avri Doria:by allowing that there are policy making mechansims other than the 
formal PDP process it admit that there are other forms of policy making for the 
GNSO.

  Marika Konings:Annex A says 'If the GNSO is conducting activities that are 
not intended to result in a Consensus Policy, the Council may act through other 
processes.'

  Avri Doria:the difference is that for the consensus policy to apply to the 
contract a strict adherence to the process is necessary.  And the difference is 
mostly in the effect of the policy.

  Avri Doria:exactly Marika, that implies the existence of other policy 
processes.

  Mary Wong:Basically, right now there is no other formal process for policy 
development in the GNSO. The only process formulated is the PDP in Annex A, 
which can result in either Consensus Policy (binding contracts) or consensus 
policy.

  Mary Wong:Hence, as Marika says, this WG can propose additional policy 
processes that would supplement Annex A - these could go toward policy 
guidance, for instance.

  Avri Doria:right but we use the pdp for all sorts of stufff.  we just are 
freer in applicationof the rules on those than we can be on the consensus 
policy.

  Avri Doria:it is true we use the sledgehammer when a jewler's hammer might be 
sufficient.

  Avri Doria:but we only have a sledgehammer.

  Alan Greenberg:Mary, there is in fact some other methodologies that have been 
used. Before the IGO/INGO PDP, ther ewas a Drafting team that established some 
rules for the RCRC and Olympics. It would be hard to argue that this was not 
policy, but it did not use the PDP.

  Mary Wong:True, Alan - but these do not have the formal rules/processes 
elaborated in either Annex A or the PDP Manual - again, this WG can take the 
further step of developing/defining those additional processes.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Anne Aikman Scaleses has joined the audio bridge

  Michael R. Graham:I would revise: GNSO Policy is any Policy developed in 
response to a Charter from the GNSO, developedthrough a formal policy 
development process or other process or methodology, as set forth and 
acknowledged in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws.

  Alan Greenberg:I would hope that *WE* will not define such processes but 
perhaps give some overall principlas for such processes

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:good start on rewording Michael G!

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Michael, so you propose a procedural definition, 
rather than a substantive definition, right?

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:to clarify my comment: in the document we see, the 
definition of policy (generally accepted ....) is, in my wording, a 
"substantive" definition (ie: what a policy contains) and the GNSO Policy 
definition is a procedural one (something that is produced by a particular 
process).

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Policy developed AND adopted for recommendation to ICANN 
Board.  Doesn't the ICANN Board itself have to adopt ICANN Policy pursuant to 
By-Laws?

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:for instance too, picket fence is a substantial 
definition (ie related to scope), whereas the distinction between Policy and 
policy is a procedural one.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Do people agree with this distinction?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I think these distinctions are important  yes @Bertrand

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:can you scroll the document to the next page?

  Marika Konings:To clarify - only Chuck's comment was added, the language was 
already there

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Difference between GNSO Policy and ICANN Policy is 
substantive, not procedural.  Should this be clarified in the definitions?  
Especially helpful to newcomers.

  Alan Greenberg:Bertrand, you should be able to scroll yourself

  Marika Konings:@Alan - that is the task for the WG ;-)

  Marika Konings:to define how this process should look

  Alan Greenberg:Marika, agreed, but I am a bit worried about the perception

 Bertrand de La Chapelle:Alan, wouldn't this be rather called "policy update" 
or "policy clarification"?

  J. Scott Evans:i just cut myself off.  I will diall back in

  Avri Doria:that was an accidental hand.  i am typing today.

  J. Scott Evans:I thought I was unmuting myself.  Ugh

  Alan Greenberg:Bertrand, we could certainly develop all sorts ofterms. 
Another class of problem is one wherealthough formal policy is needed, it is 
not likely to be controversial and a more streamlined process could meet the 
needs cor full consultation without taking 9 -12 months minimum.

  J. Scott Evans:I am back

  Avri Doria:the pdp is flexible enough for many uses.  it has some points 
where it can be more flexible.

  Alan Greenberg:If you go back in time, the process followed for domain 
tasting, at a time where we were a lot less rigorous than we are now, is 
probably the type of new process we are aiming at.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:what alan is taking about is important. But whtat he 
addresses is the problem of having to launch a full new PDP to modify in any 
way an adopted policy. I think it would fit less under the therm "guidance" but 
rather be a small additional process for the PDP to  add mechanisms for 
existing Policy updates, clarifications, or modifications.

  Avri Doria:the only real diiferentian between CPolicy and Policy is the 
result.

  Alan Greenberg:@Bertran, modifying  an earlier PDP rec is just one example. 
Not the only one

  Avri Doria:And CPolicy is the only outcome that requires strict adherence to 
the bylaws defined PDPD constriants.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:alan, understood

  Avri Doria:Alan i disagree about the barrier you see to restarting.  Given 
that we leave an implementatation team, that team can alwasy be given new 
marching orders.

  Avri Doria:by leaving a IT, we leave a pdp open.

  Avri Doria:i.e the council by its processes, can et a new milestone and add 
people to the IT.  i don't eve see a vbarrier to loop to an earlier stage in 
the process.

  Avri Doria:i think my understanding of the terms is somewhat orthoganal to 
the route the subteam has taken.  I ee policy as less ficeed in one docuemtn or 
action but as a more fluid  continuing process.

  Avri Doria:my spelling is worse than usual today.  i guess it is all the snow 
shoveling.

  Avri Doria:guidance, recommendation is there really a big difference?

  Avri Doria:it all needs to be acted on by the board.  and unless it is 
intended for CPolicy, the Board can pretty much do as it pleases.

  Avri Doria:Marika, that is one of the points that came out in discussion in 
NCSG, that the definition are constraining the possible answers.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Marika, providing input or advice on the strategic 
plan, should probably not be labelled "policy advice or guidance".

  Marika Konings:@Avri - maybe that is something we can further emphasize in 
the introductory language?

  Marika Konings:@Bertrand - but the GNSO may want to have a formal process 
should it decide to provide input as a GNSO Council?

  Marika Konings:I didn't mean to imply what that kind of input should be 
called, but just to note that it may not be a question of one size fits all, 
but different processes / procedures may come out of this WG out of which the 
GNSO could choose which one to use depending on the issue at hand.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Olevie Kouami has joined the call

  Olevie:HI

  Olevie:Apologies for my delay

  Chuck Gomes:Welcom Olevie.  We are going through the definitions one by one.  
Now on 3.

  Olevie:OJK. Thank you dearest Chuck for the update

  Avri Doria:ie. one definiton of policy is ...

  Avri Doria:so it is not a working defintion it is one suggested defintion

  Chuck Gomes:@Michael: Please 5 minutes at the end for agenda items 7, 8 & 9.

  Avri Doria:I beleie I am going to have a real problem trying to use these 
defntions for the terms.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:an additional point to keep in mind in our work: what 
should be the mechanisms to make the distinction between policy and 
implementation respected. Ie: how can it be said that an implementation 
mechanisms proposed by staff is actually changing the policy or vice-versa, 
that a proposed policy  is actually gettinginto too much implementation.

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:what are the triggers, the criteria and the 
mechanisms?

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Need to add "applying a policy adopted by the ICANN 
Board".  Also talk about GNSO recommended policy per Alan's comment

  J. Scott Evans:dear all, I have to jump off the call now.  Good discussion.  
Thank you to everyone for their input.

  Avri Doria:Bye J. Scott

  Avri Doria:speaking of terms, i really wish we had coordinating teams as 
opposed to leadership teams - it is more bottom-upish

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks everyone!

  Bertrand de La Chapelle:For the record on definition 10. We describe the MS 
model as covering both policy and implementation in the first paragraph. 
Accordingly, we should say in the second paragraph only "utilizes bottom-up, 
consensus-based processes", instead of limiting it to "policy development 
processes"