[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 13 August 2014
Dear All, The next Policy and Implementation Working Group teleconference is scheduled next week on Wednesday 20th August at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour. Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working group call held on Wednesday 13 August 2014 at 19:00 UTC at: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20140813en.mp3> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20140813en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#aug 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: Cheryl Langdon-Orr - At-Large Olevie Kouami - NPOC Chuck Gomes - RySG Greg Shatan-IPC Jonathan Frost-RySG J Scott Evans - BC Klaus Stoll-NPOC Avri Doria-NCSG Amr Elsadr-NCUC Alan Greenberg-ALAC Michael Graham - IPC Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP Stephanie Perrin - NCUC Tom Barrett - RrSG Apologies: None 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 13 August Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation Working Group Meeting of 13 August 2014 Michael R. Graham:I guess no mic on my side -- I will call in a few minutes late. Terri Agnew:Thank you for letting us know Amr Elsadr:Hi Terri. I can hear you, but haven't activated my mic. :) Amr Elsadr:I'll be dialling in in a few moments. Amr Elsadr:I know I'm a bit early. Terri Agnew:@Amr, Thank you for letting me know Amr Elsadr:Just joined the call. Hi all. Greg Shatan:I've just joined the call as well. Hello to all. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Hi Greg and everyone else. Terri Agnew:Olevie Kouami has joined Terri Agnew:Avri Doria has joined Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined Mary Wong:As Chuck notes, the Board's resolution has more than one part. On policy relating to name collision, the GNSO will be consulted for future rounds. Mary Wong:On the community feedback on rights protection, the Global Domains Division will lead a community consultation over the next couple of months. Mary Wong:Board resolution text: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-07- 30-en#1.a Amr Elsadr:Marika touched on something important, which is that a PGP shouldn't (at least according to this WG's charter) shouldn't be used to develop consensus policy (policy translating into contractual obligations). Mary Wong:@Amr, yes, that's what the chart reflects. Avri Doria:interpretation, in its essence, requires policy consideration Avri Doria:but interpretaton should not require new policy, and thus not necessarily require a supermajority. Avri Doria:and of oocurse leaving aside the fact of this issue that the new gTLD recommendations form the GNSO never required RPMs at all. Terri Agnew:Tom Barrett has joined Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes - that is why we are here and if we can address this, we are helping the organization to be more effective. Michael R. Graham:Back. Avri Doria:but it is just an example, right, we are not actually rguing the case. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Right Avri - we are just trying to put it through the systems because answers are needed in the consultancy period of 90 days. Avri Doria:in this case any RPM shold have gone back to the GNSO since there was NEVER a policy from the GNSO recommendaing RPMs. Mary Wong:Please note that the RPM issue is not being referred back to the GNSO. Avri Doria:just examples. Mary Wong:What is being referred back to the GNSO is the question of whether a long term policy ought to be developed for future rounds. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Yes - just an example. J. Scott:I fundatmentally disagree with Avri. And this is just another illustration fo the problem. J. Scott:I think the GNSO policy recommendations were very clear that there should be protections for the rights of others. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Mary - I think we said the PGP or PIP could be invoked by the community even if the ICANN Board does not ask? Avri Doria:J. Scott, kind of figured you might, since I was finadamentally disagreeing with you all. J. Scott:That guidance was implemented with RPMs. Some felt that RPMs required PDP. Again, have we resolved this? Avri Doria:the hard part is determining what constitues prior policy decsion. A gnso recommendation approved by the board as PDP. A Board action based on ad-hoc out of band decsion processes Avri Doria:or staff actions based on interpetation of Board decsions. Anne Aikman-Scalese:I think most of the Charter group are mostly on this call. There was also a question about development of this type of process in the Charter questions. Amr Elsadr:I thought the charter asked for a process to "develop gTLD policy"? Amr Elsadr:that is not consensus policy, of course. Mary Wong:@Anne, it's not clear at this point how the community consultation will be carried out or, indeed, the outcomes. It may be that the community will feel one of the processes we are discussing her might be an appropriate path to take. Jonathan Frost:J.Scott, I'm sorry I'm having a little trouble following; what guidance was issued with the RPMs? Mary Wong:For this particular issue, the RPMs in question were developed during the implementation phase of the New gTLD Program so that may be an important consideration in deciding what to do. J. Scott:Jonathan: the GNSO gave about 19 or so policy recommendations. One was the need to provide for the protection of 3rd party rights. J. Scott:the RPMs were the Staff's implementation of this policy guidance. Amr Elsadr:@Alan: That was what I would have assumed might be an outcome. (RE: changing the charter) J. Scott:Some people in the community felt that the RPMs themselves were policy and that a PDP should have been held. Amr Elsadr:@Alan: Thanks for the correction. :) Avri Doria:J. Scott, but you dont bring out the specific decsion made in the process that there would be non REQUIRED RPMs. (which we we did not promote to the final recommendations but which was decison of the PDPD) Avri Doria:it was the RPM subgroup of the new gTLD PDP. Jonathan Frost:Thanks J.Scott Marika Konings:The idea of all this work is also to look ahead - past efforts may not necessarily fit perfectly in this framework, but the hope is that some of the flaws that we have seen in the past won't occur again as a result of improvements on both sides (policy development as well as implementation) Avri Doria:Marika, indeed, what i using the example of is how sommething that looks like implementtation can really be policy based on its origins. Alan Greenberg:My comment was short-hand - if it alters a contract WITHIN THE PICKET FENCE. Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:indeed Alan that is my understanding Michael R. Graham:My understanding: POLICY = Third party intellectual property rights should be protected. IMPLEMENTATION = RPMs developed If there had been a continuing IRT of the POLICY, that IRT should have been able to provide Policy Guidance at the request of concerned consituencies -- this is how I think process we are considering could have assisted. Marika Konings:Consensus policies topics are defined in the agreements. Other requirements may be the result of other discussions (such as contractual negotiations) Avri Doria:Alan, PGP is not just about picket fence issues is it? i thought i related to anything that had been handled in a PDP Marika Konings:@Anne - the proposed voting threshold for invoking a PGP is currently the same as for a PDP Avri Doria:we did make policy of reserved names. hence they are policy. Mary Wong:@Avri, Alan was talking about Consensus Policy, I think, which is developed thru a PDP. Marika Konings:@Avri - that is correct, but the PGP (compared to the fast track PDP) is not able to create new consensus policies. Avri Doria:i think once a PDP has occured, topics that were discussed under the DPD are policy issues. Avri Doria:DPD == PDP Marika Konings:if a change is needed to the actual policy recommendations, a fast track PDP could be considered. If further guidance is needed on policy recommendations, then a PGP would be appropriate. Avri Doria:i would think that policy interpretaion, should be on the faster track. but it still policy. Alan Greenberg:@avri, regarding something defato being policy and within the domain of the GNSO if we have had a pdp. I don't think so. the PDP on contractual conditions (PDP05?) talked about a lot of things that did not automatically become things that in the future the GNSO had sole control over. Alan Greenberg:defato = de facto Avri Doria:Alan, we may not agree on this point. I think that once there is a PDP, the GNSO hace dlecared it relvant policy. Just becasue other may usyrp that or feel it is inappropriate, does not change that. Alan Greenberg:Won't be the first time we do not agree! ;-) Amr Elsadr:I also always thought PDP = gTLD policy, which is why there is adifferentation between PDP WGs and non-PDP Wgs. Avri Doria:the Board can, and has, decide it knows better, and in its omnipotence make a polcy decsion that overrules a GNSO policy recommendation. that does not mean it is not longer a GNSO policy issue. Amr Elsadr:@Avri: +1 Marika Konings:@Amr - non-PDP WGs may also focus on gTLD related issues, however, the desired outcome is not new contractual obligations. Avri Doria:i agree it should be super majority Avri Doria:to decide on a recommendation. Jonathan Frost:I think it should be a super majority too; if it is a simpler process to make rules that have the effect of policy, it should ahve a higher threshhold to invoke Amr Elsadr:@Marika: Of course, but I was specificly referring to gTLD "policy". Am I mistaken in my understanding of the differentation? Mary Wong:@Amr, if it helps, the PGP is not intended to replicate or substitute for the PDP. Where a PDP is the appropriate vehicle, that is what shouold be used. Avri Doria:we could use the other threshhold, the one we have for so called out of scope dpds. Avri Doria:there are those who dont want to make rethinking pdps quite as easy as initiating new ones. Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Of course. I didn't think that was anyone's intent. Mary Wong:@Amr, right - so there will need to be discussion on any particular topic as to whether the PDP or PGP (or some other process) would be the appropriate way to deal with the problem. That's what we tried to capture in the first chart. J. Scott:All: J. Scott:Great discussion. Both verbal and chat. I am going to have to drop off the call in about 10 minutes. J. Scott:thanks Marika Cheryl Langdon-Orr:you mean Policy/Implementation Guidance Process as just a change of nomenclature @chuck.... Anne Aikman-Scalese:IMPLEMENT a PIG process Alan Greenberg:GGP = GNSO Guidance Process Amr Elsadr:@Anne: LOL!! Marika Konings:Just to note that this is something we also noted in our questions: (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? Avri Doria:PIGP is nice Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I can work with PIGP Marika Konings:The question is whether this same process would apply to implementation related issues (for example, flagged by an Implementation Review Team), or is a modified / different version needed. Alan Greenberg:PIGP sohrt for Pig Pen? Marika Konings:from the comments so far, most seem to support a similar process? Avri Doria:my favorite Dead drummer Avri Doria:pigpen that is. sorry Alan Greenberg:Or undead Peanuts character. Jonathan Frost:Since the GSNO is a policy making body, does its mandate extend to implementation? Alan Greenberg:If we feel that voting thresholds need to change, then we should talk about it. Mary Wong:I'll send the document Chuck requested after the call today. Cheryl Langdon-Orr:so if that is the case @Chuck. do we also consider PIIP the other alternative process we are optioning... I.e. Policy Implementation Input Process as well? J. Scott:I am going to have to sign off. Thank you everyone for your time and for the great discussion. Avri Doria:no i think of adjucioation as interpretation Mary Wong:Note that one of the Deliverable I questions and discussion was over whether Policy and Implementation lie along a spectrum or are binary - perhaps that discussion can be helpful here? Cheryl Langdon-Orr:my points in earlier meetings was that thresholds (whatever they are) at each process level. such as initiation thresholds being lower etc., being easy to know, expect and understand ( in my view why not the same) threshold, but at least any specific thresholds wepropse should not be NEW rather they should aim to be duplicative of one(s) used and established so as to not increase the complexity and likelihood off confusion Greg Shatan:I tend to agree with Avri on the point of not making initiating a PIGP to easy.... Don't want topics sucked up into these processes that shouldn't be. Anne Aikman-Scalese:Could we just call this GNSO Guidance Process - GGP? Avri Doria:some of us see them as the ying and yang and that they tension exsits not only in the macro of policy making, but in the micro of implementation Greg Shatan:On the other hand, I must point that Pigpen played keyboards, not drums. Jonathan Frost:There are two kinds of regulations in US law, interpretive and legislative; i think the question implies that ther are two types of implementations, kinds like the RPMs that are legislative because the policy gave staff the mandate of coming up with rules, and interpretive implementation, which is merely trying to follow policy Avri Doria:wow greg. you are right. Stephanie Perrin: I can explain what I meant if it helps... Anne Aikman-Scalese:@STphanie - I think the ICANN Board is the Adjudicator tom barrett - EnCirca:adjudication sounds like responding to something in the off-line world that societies worked out a long time ago. Amr Elsadr:@Anne: I would rather avoid the board as an adjudicator. tom barrett - EnCirca:@amr agreed. Jonathan Frost:+1 Amr tom barrett - EnCirca:ditto for staff Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Amr - I see your point but under the By-Laws the Board actually makes poicy after getting recommendations for all over the community. Stephanie Perrin:i think this helps me, and I do think it is worth making this explicit. Mary Wong:May we (staff) ask that folks be clear on what you mean by needing an adjudication? That seems to imply a need for resolution when two or more sides disagree. Greg Shatan:A real deadhead would point out that Pigpen played some percussion (congas) toward the end of his time.... Jonathan Frost:Thanks for leading us today Chuck Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye, more next meeting then Michael R. Graham:Yes, agree -- we're not ready. Avri Doria 2:he played them off boradway in a show i ran follwo spot on. Michael R. Graham:But was actually a great pianist! Jonathan Frost:What did you do with Avri Doria 1? Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thanks so much Chuck and staff! Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Bye. tom barrett - EnCirca:bye all Avri Doria 2:bye Jonathan Frost:Bye Attachment:
smime.p7s |