<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] With correct meeting date: Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 22 January 2014
- To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] With correct meeting date: Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 22 January 2014
- From: mcubberley <mcubberley@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 11:42:55 -0500
Please accept my apologies as well. I was not able to participate, nor was I
able to send regrets.
Best regards,
Maureen
Maureen Cubberley
+1.705.382.3841
+1.705.718.5723
On 2014-01-23, at 10:49 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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"
>>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|