[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 23 July 2014
Dear All, The next Policy and Implementation Working Group teleconference is scheduled next week on Wednesday 30th July at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour. Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working group call held on Wednesday 23 July 2014 at 19:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20140723en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20140723en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jul The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Alan Greenberg - ALAC J Scott Evans - BC Tom Barrett - RrSG Cheryl Langdon-Orr - At-Large Stephanie Perrin - NCUC Michael Graham - IPC Olevie Kouami - NPOC Chuck Gomes - RySG Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP Avri Doria-NCSG Brian Winterfeldt-IPC Greg Shatan-IPC Anne Aikman-Scalese-IPC Apologies: Nic Steinbach-RrSG ICANN staff: Marika Konings Mary Wong Amy Bivins Steve Chan Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag> https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Chat Transcript for Wednesday 23 July Marika Konings:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation WG meeting of 23 July 2014 J. Scott Evans:Greetings all. Tom Barrett - EnCirca:on adobeconnect for now Michael R. Graham:We appear to be getting down to the dedicated few. Terri Agnew:Brian Winterfeldt has joined Terri Agnew:Greg Shatan has joined Terri Agnew:Anne Aikman Scalese has joined audio Greg Shatan:I am getting down to the hold music at the "conference calling centre" -- at least until I got cut off. Redialing. Terri Agnew:trying to find line causing noise Greg Shatan:I am now on the audio bridge. (And on mute, so hopefully not causing noise!) Stephanie Perrin:Sorry to be late! Terri Agnew:Welcome Stephanie Mary Wong:Some of what Marika is describing are suggestions/questions for this group to decide regarding what this proposed Policy Guidance Process should look like. The idea here is that the PGP should be more rigorous/concrete than the more lightweight Policy Input Process (PDP). Mary Wong:With the end result that the GNSO Council will have at its disposal two additional processes on top of the existing PDP. Mary Wong:(Sorry, Policy Input Process two comments up should have been abbreviated as PIP rather than PDP!) Terri Agnew 2:As a reminder, plesae make sure to mute when not speaking Terri Agnew 2:Olevie Kouami has disconnected. We are trying to reach him again. Anne Aikman-Scalese:SHouldn't there be a decision point when the letter comes from the Board to determine whether the request is policy or implementation? Marika Konings:@Anne - I think the hope is that it is no longer relevant - the question should be what the desired outcome of the deliberations would be. Marika Konings:and that would determine which process is followed Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry I will speak up next time... Anne Aikman-Scalese:Do either of these processes for discussion involve obtaining any cross-community input? ICANN gets hung up where the Board is trying to reconcile differences in policy and implementation approach from different groups. Can we anticipate this and provide for any process that suggests a manner for getting together with the GAC, ALAC etc earlier and using the recommended Policy Guidance process as a mechansim for resolving difference before they get to the Board level? In other words, is there any way for the community to devlop a process for development of consensus policy guidance from all the bodies that provide policy input? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Sorry but I have to drive again and will just be listening. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:if we have Long Form and Sort Form PDP's. the choice node to go that way could occur as options at several points or in several circa stances... se need to explore that YES Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Sort should read SHORT sigh auto correct Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes agree to Anne's point. input from as wide as possible as early as practical in all circumstances... Mary Wong:@Cheryl, perhaps this WG could note that as a desirable avenue to explore; not certain going on to actually create one is within scope of this WG .... ? Mary Wong:Meaning the Short PDP Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yup @Mary Terri Agnew 2:Olevie has rejoined audio Cheryl Langdon-Orr:creating more Forms other than the PDP we all have now needs extra and probably external to our WG work but we need to explore Marika Konings:@Alan, which PDP are you referring to? Alan Greenberg:The one that is current?? Marika Konings:curative rights? Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Yes Marika a good point re the PDP Guidelines here in pre Board Vote phase... Alan Greenberg:I was thinking of IRTP-D. The issue of scrapping the FOA. Marika Konings:ah, ok Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thresholds and triggers need to be fully explored at many of these decision nodes in our processes. but would be well worthwhile exploring Cheryl Langdon-Orr:AND is consist and predictable Cheryl Langdon-Orr:that was to Chucks last point Mary Wong:@Stephanie, your point on measuring sucesss may be something the existing Data Metrics for Policy Making (DMPM) WG could be looking at too. Stephanie Perrin:Thanks Mary, Maybe I should take a look at this...I do see that in some of the discussion re is it a policy or implementation, one of our central problems is confusing outcomes... Cheryl Langdon-Orr:they are a spectrum in my view Stephanie Perrin:indeed I think they are....and this is why I thought logic models might help clarify this....and enable us to draw lines as to where the fall, and who (which committee) ought to be addressing them. In terms of public consultation, if there is robust consultation regardless of whether something is considered to be one or the other, perhaps the distinction is less important Alan Greenberg:The question becomes: when we discover something with a policy flovour during iplementation, do we exit the implenetation process for an excursion down policy-lane? Cheryl Langdon-Orr:obviously there are decision modes and splits to pathway. Impl v PDP / pDp. but that may not be pure bulian either Greg we may always need a loop or few with routes "out identified" clearly predicted and defined Greg Shatan:Are chickens and eggs binary or on a spectrum? Cheryl Langdon-Orr:you all have covered what I wanted to say I put it up to say it was now identifiable in my view as a 'bad' question Alan Greenberg:Well, few single chickens flip back and forth between the two stages. For any given entity it is a monotonic process. Alan Greenberg:Sort of like cooking. Part of the process is "implementation" - just letting it cook and develop. But periodically we taste and add ingredients - that is changing the policy! Alan Greenberg:Sadly, since this is going so well, we are over time. Michael R. Graham:Both: They are on spectrum of the life of a chicken, but are clearly recognizable as different -- and subject to different cooking methods. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Sorry I must exit. Good session! Anne Cheryl Langdon-Orr:good call guys I'll discuss some of it further with my hens as I let them out to graze today in a few hours:-) but seriously also give some feedback to the Metrics WG that we probably do have some cross over points to watch in our work Mary Wong:@CLO, noted re DMPM crossover. Jonathan Frost:Thanks Chuck. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thx Mary Attachment:
smime.p7s |