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

[Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My apologies as well, I did not get this scheduled.  I have listened to the 
transcript, sounds like great progress!
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-01-23, at 10:49 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> 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"
>> 
>