[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 30th April 2014
Dear All, The next Policy and Implementation Working Group teleconference is scheduled for the Wednesday 07th May 2014 at 1900 UTC for 1,5 hrs. Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working group call held on Wednesday 30th April 2014 at 19:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20140430en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar# <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may> apr The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Greg Shatan - IPC Wolf Knoben - ISPCP Chuck Gomes - RySG Alan Greenberg - ALAC Klaus Stoll - NPOC Michael Graham - IPC J.Scott Evans - BC Olevie Kouami - NPOC Nic Steinbach - RrSG Tom Barrett - RrSG James Bladel - RrSG Brian Winterfeldt - IPC Philip Karnofsky - Individual Phil Marano - IPC Apologies: Amr Elsadr - NCUC Cheryl Langdon-Orr - At-Large ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins 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 30th April: Marika Konings:Welcome to the PI WG Meeting of 30 April 2014 Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, please note that we have changed telecom provider for this session and the following sessions. Please check the latest email invitation in your inbox, or alternatively, ask me for the new dial in numbers here. Audio passcode remains the same. J. Scott Evans:dialing in now Bladel:I'm Adobe only for a few minutes. Bladel:Will dial in as soon as I can? Nathalie Peregrine:Michael Graham has joined the audio bridge Nic Steinbach:sounds good to me Nathalie Peregrine:Michael is on the phone Nathalie Peregrine:ALSO in the AC room Michael Graham:I'm not able to speak. I will look at the terms to be sure once I arrive destination. Marika Konings:Implement, implementation and implementation of a GNSO policy are part of the working definitions document Bladel:in the plan itself. Marika Konings:Staff cannot make changes to the policy Michael Graham:I don't believe "GNSO implementation guidance" was defined -- it would be valuable to do so in light of its significance in the principles. Tom Barrett - EnCirca:then replace development with translation Tom Barrett - EnCirca:well put Nathalie Peregrine:Brian Winterfeldt has joined Chuck Gomes:Should we send this back to the small group to start from scratch with d as James suggested? Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Marano has joined the call Michael Graham:I would adopt Alan's statement verbatim here. Tom Barrett - EnCirca:proposed more general principle Tom Barrett - EnCirca:a. In all cases, changes that effect the implementation guidance, intent of any policy recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council must be communicated to the GNSO Council or appropriate entity as designated by the GNSO Council, which maintains the right to review the changes, determine whether or not they are supported by the intent of the policy recommendations, and modify the implementation plan accordingly. Alan Greenberg:To capture what I said (or think I said), The Gnso or the body it designated has the right and responsibility to ensure that the implementation of a GNSO Policy recommendation tracks both the recomendation(s) and the intent of those recomendations. Marika Konings:@Tom - just to clarify, did you want to add material or not? Chuck Gomes:What is meant by 'implementation guidance'? Marika Konings:@Chuck - a WG may include in its Final Report suggestions on how something may be implemented. That is what we would consider implementation guidance. Chuck Gomes:Thanks Marika. Tom Barrett - EnCirca:why not just re-use the wording from section (c)? Marika Konings:Maybe the nuance between c and d is to detailed for this high level principles document? Tom Barrett - EnCirca:section d should not be mentionng terms that not mentioned in section c Marika Konings:because I think c refers to instances where there is an implementation plan, while d refers to the translation of the policy recommendations into an implementation plan Alan Greenberg:I think we are getting ourselves buried deeper and deeper.in the mud. Marika Konings:I think Tom's proposed language could easily replace c and d as a high level principle in my view Mary Wong:If it helps, this is from last week's transcript; hopefully this is what we are asking James to recall? all material changes, I think, as opposed to any, you know, administrative or basically ensuring that there are -- that all changes that are, you know, determined to be material, must be communicated to the GNSO Council, which maintains the right to review the changes, determine whether or not they are supported by the intent of policy recommendations and modified implementation accordingly. " Mary Wong:nd "So my thinking is, rather than trying to design separate layers for material, versus immaterial, or whatever, we just say essentially that changes need to be communicated. The GNSO, or whatever the chartering entity is, has the reason to determine whether or not those are in line or even keeping with the intent of the policy, and can make modifications to the implementation of the policy. And I think that's really, in three sentences, what we are trying to accomplish with these bullet points. " Marika Konings:@Greg, but isn't that captured in the wording suggested by Tom? Marika Konings:so whenever the Council considers that it effects the implementation guidance or intent, they can challenge Marika Konings:OK, I get what you are saying - but likely that will be the job of the IRT to flag to the Council? Chuck Gomes:What if we said "for all such cases"? Chuck Gomes:"For all such cases changes should be . . . " Marika Konings:@Greg - but that is what is happening in practice for current IRTs Marika Konings:and in addition to the IRT, implementation plans are also posted for public comment Marika Konings:@Alan - agreed! Bladel:Disagree with that point. Bladel:It has been a significant problem. Marika Konings:we do need to come up with a mechanism for when it might be a problem, but a lot of progress has been made in relation to the use of IRTs Marika Konings:but again, that is for the detailed deliberations, not the high level principles ;-) Alan Greenberg:These are supposed to be PRINCIPLES, not a detailed operational plan. Michael R. Graham:Agree with Alan: General Principle = changes should be reported to GNSO, which may review and take appropriate action. Bladel:No, those have also been a problem. Marika Konings:@James - can you be more specific? Bladel:Implementation of the TMCH. PEDNR/ERRP. RAA did not have a formal IRT, but the implementation concerns of Registrars were disregarded. Marika Konings:TMCH did not have an IRT (or at least not an IRT as defined in the PDP manual) Marika Konings:RAA was not the result of a PDP Greg Shatan:I've just sent a crude workflow document by email to the group.... Michael R. Graham:The appropriateness and possible design of IRTs is one of the substantive issues of the PIWG, no? Tom Barrett - EnCirca:its a difference of being proactive vs reactive Greg Shatan:@Alan, changes is a bad word it's really "translations and additions" Tom Barrett - EnCirca:the issue os not about the gnso but about staff Greg Shatan:Agree with Alan's escalation Marika Konings:@Michael - yes, ' Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate' Bladel:Divergence Tom Barrett - EnCirca:we think we need to separate what we want staff to do vs what we want the gnso to do. Tom Barrett - EnCirca:this princupe is referring to what we want staff to do. Michael R. Graham:I would simplify and generalize (d) to be a principle per either Alan or Tom proposals. Greg Shatan:DEVELOPMENT = DRAFTING? Tom Barrett - EnCirca:grammatically, changes should refer to the guidance...not the plan Michael R. Graham:Re: Right side language: Should "intent of" be "intent or"? Tom Barrett - EnCirca:sure..or "intent of, or" Bladel: will also volunteer Alan Greenberg:Since we seem to be just about over, I will go over to my other call. Bladel::) Bladel:Thanks, J. Scott. Chuck Gomes:thanks J. SScott Michael R. Graham:Than\ks all! Phil Marano:Thank you. Attachment:
smime.p7s |