RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review - Notes from WG Discussion on GNSO Processes Flow Charts
Thanks Marika. Please see my responses below. Chuck From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 1:15 PM To: Mary Wong; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review - Notes from WG Discussion on GNSO Processes Flow Charts Dear All, After having listened to the recording of last week's call and encouraged by Chuck's closing words, there are a couple of points I wanted to share with you: * Regarding guidelines, the idea would be that following agreement on the high level principles for each process (presumably following public comment?) these would be translated into a manual similar to the PDP Manual so that it is clear what the details of each process would be. Similar to how this was done for the PDP Manual, staff could prepare a first draft based on the WG discussions for further review.[Chuck Gomes] I am assuming that he processes themselves would be developed by a WG or WGs just as was done for the PDP Manual. * The Policy Input Process is modelled on the approach that has been used for various efforts such as input to the ATRT2 and Board request for input on the Whois Review Team recommendations. This process is intended to be lightweight to allow the Council to respond in a timely manner, noting that the outcome has no binding force - as such you may want to reconsider having a specific voting threshold associated with initiating this process as this automatically results in additional steps and time (need for a motion, requirement to submit in time for Council meeting, option for deferral, etc.). On the call some expressed concern that without a voting threshold, the Council could just go off without any accountability, but as Council members are elected by their respective groups and any outcome in the end needs to be endorsed by the Council (either through non objection or a vote), wouldn't this create sufficient accountability? If too much bureaucracy is associated with this process, it is unlikely the Council would use it and instead revert to the ad-hoc process it is currently using.[Chuck Gomes] What I heard last week from the WG members on the call is that there was strong agreement that more is needed than just a Council vote. Maybe it could be as simple as having each of the Councilors except for the NCAs confirm that they communicated the proposed Council position and asked for any objections to be expressed within a 2-week period; if any objections were received, modifications could be considered to mitigate the objections; if no objections were received, Councilors would be free to support the action. * The question on which process to use shouldn't be about how much or how little nimble the process is, but what the desired outcome is. The idea being that at the outset the Council determines what it intends to achieve at the end of the process - is it intended to result in new contractual obligations, then a PDP should be used, is it intended to trigger a response / action from the Board, but not create new contractual obligations, then a PGP should be used, is it intended to provide input, then a PIP can be used.[Chuck Gomes] This seems okay. * Further consideration should be given on what the Board response to a PGP is - should it be similar to a PDP or different? (Presumably this will at some point also require some conversation with the Board?)[Chuck Gomes] Agreed. * The WG may want to consider whether a PGP with a supermajority voting threshold could be a suitable candidate for a fast track PDP for a narrow set of situations (e.g. when following implementation it is identified that a certain policy needs to be tweaked to avoid unforeseen effects or when an issue has already been scoped in detail based on previous efforts). The supermajority voting threshold would ensure support from a large set of the GNSO community that a PGP would be appropriate to address that specific issue and not an attempt to short cut the PDP. If there would be no supermajority support, a PDP could/would need to be initiated.[Chuck Gomes] I think something like this could work. * The idea is that any of these processes would be initiated by the GNSO Council - some suggested that an IRT could invoke these processes, but based on their current remit and mandate, it would not have any authority to do so. It would seem more appropriate that the IRT would recommend to the GNSO Council if it has identified an issue that needs to be addressed, whether a PGP or PDP would need to be invoked. Furthermore, in the case of a PGP, the IRT could indicate whether it is of the view that the IRT itself would be the appropriate vehicle to develop the recommendations seeing their expertise in relation to the topic following which the GNSO Council could decide whether or not to follow their advice. (Note - currently IRTs do not have a chair or any specific decision-making process associated with their deliberations. This is something the WG may also want to consider as it dives into the other deliverables. One option could be to have the GNSO Council liaison function in this role, if the need arises, so he/she would be in a position to determine whether there is consensus for recommending a certain approach and take that back to the GNSO Council for further consideration). As noted in the question as well, further consideration may need to be given when IRTs are reviewed on whether additional processes may be necessary or not.[Chuck Gomes] What I understood from the participants on the call last week is that the IRT could recommend a PGP but the Council would make the decision. I hope this is helpful. Looking forward to this week's discussion. Best regards, Marika From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Friday 1 August 2014 00:26 To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review - Notes from WG Discussion on GNSO Processes Flow Charts Dear WG members, Attached please find Discussion Notes from the Wednesday call, in relation to the five questions specific to the draft GNSO Processes Flow Charts (see email below for the questions). As the Wednesday discussion was concentrated on these questions, we thought the notes might be easier to review if compiled in the form of a separate document rather than added on to the Deliverable I document. We will be circulating an updated version of the GNSO Processes Flow Chart soon, revised to reflect the Wednesday discussion. As a result, Deliverable I remains largely unchanged, save for the inclusion of all three SO/AC input responses, so we have not attached it to this email to avoid cluttering up your inboxes. Please let me know if you'd like a copy nonetheless. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM To: <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Proposed agenda for WG meeting on 30 July Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for the next WG meeting on Wednesday 30 July is as follows: 1. Roll Call /Updates to SOI 2. Review draft GNSO Processes flow charts (updated and circulated on 24 July) 3. Continue review of Deliverable I - item E(a), E(b) and E(c) (updated and circulated on 24 July) 4. Review of Deliverable I Item F (SG/C/SO/AC input received) - form small team to review comments and draft response? 5. Confirm next steps / next meeting For Agenda Item #2, please review the following questions that Marika had circulated on 24 July. We hope they will be useful as you discuss the draft GNSO Processes flow chart: * Do the two draft processes (Policy Guidance Process and Policy Input Processes) align with the WG's thinking and discussions to date? If not, what other processes / elements would need to be explored? * What voting thresholds should be associated with initiating a Policy Guidance Process or alike, as well as adoption of recommendations? * Should Board consideration of recommendations following a Policy Guidance Process (or similar) follow the same process as is currently used for PDP recommendations? * Should the WG explore a Policy Guidance Process or similar to also be available to develop modified consensus policy recommendations in those limited circumstances in which either limited changes need to be made following implementation of a consensus policy (based on data gathered or practical experience) or where additional scoping information is already available based on previous efforts? * (not necessarily for Deliverable I, but to keep in mind) How do these processes align with a possible process that would need to be available during implementation of policy recommendations and that could be invoked by Implementation Review Teams/GNSO Council in case policy/implementation issues are identified that need further consideration by the broader community? The updated documents that were circulated on 24 July have been uploaded to the WG wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/K77hAg and will, as usual, also be made available in the Adobe Connect room for the meeting. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx Attachment:
smime.p7s
|