Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] With correct meeting date: Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 22 January 2014

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Apologies to all for not making it to yesterday’s meeting, and not notifying 
anyone in advance.

Amr

On Jan 23, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

>  
> Dear All,
> Please note that the next Policy and Implementation Working Group 
> teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 05th February 2014 at 20:00 UTC, 
> and not the 5th March as previously stated.
> 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#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"
>