[gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: Notes from today's meeting

["Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Marika.  See my suggested additions to the notes below.  I am flying to 
New York next Wednesday, but will call in if I have a layover and will try to 
provide comments on the first draft manual before that time.
Thank you,
Anne

[cid:image001.gif@01CFF441.4C678CE0]

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP |

One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

(T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725

AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | 
www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/>








From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:53 PM
To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Notes from today's meeting

Dear All,

Please find below the notes from today’s meetings. If you have any additional 
comments, please feel free to share these on the mailing list.

Best regards,

Marika

Notes 29/10:

  *   Should IRT be mandatory? What is the typical make-up of IRTs - initial 
focus has been on original PDP WG members but in certain cases additional 
expertise may be needed / desirable. Provide option for opt-out if there is no 
need, but if choice is mandatory or not, it probably should be mandatory. 
Voluntary participation - that may also show whether there is a real community 
interest or need to have one. Processes associated with Implementation Review 
Team should be flexible. Consider modifying existing language in PDP manual - 
mandatory but may be minimally/sufficiently populated (from volunteer side) - 
could for example be one person in a liaison function. More complex IRTs may 
need a different level of expertise than more straight forward policy 
recommendations. Assumed that there will be an IRT that will solicit 
volunteers, unless there are exceptional circumstances and Council decides 
there is no need for an IRT (e.g. in certain cases there may not be an 
implementation or another IRT may already be in place to deal with the 
implementation of policy recommendations). Reaching out to PDP WG with option 
to be able to reach out to obtain additional expertise.   Consider the 
following questions:
Should WG recommendations give examples of when IRT may not be necessary?
Should IRT composition be representative of GNSO Council composition?  (Let’s 
not lose Chuck’s comment.)
When does IRT go back to GNSO Council and/or the chartered WG for guidance?   
If staff is driving the process and seeking public comment, what if IRT view is 
different from staff’s view?  Should staff include IRT view in request for 
public comment?  (Staff reports to the ICANN Board and theoretically IRT 
reports to the ICANN Community.)
Should IRT have short written guidelines (still very flexible) as to, e.g.

1.       Tasked with reviewing and providing input to staff’s Implementation 
Plan.

2.       Availability of the following when disagreements/new issues arise?

(a)    Go Back to Chairs of WG for additional input.

(b)   Go to GNSO with recommendation for Policy Input pursuant to new process.

(c)    Go to GNSO with recommendation for Fast Track PDP pursuant to new 
process.

3.       Possible direct access to outside experts for IRT?, e.g. as to thorny 
technical implementation issues.

4.       What to do when IRT member quits or does not participate?
What is the duration of the IRT?  For example, many issues re: TMCH and Sunrise 
arose AFTER the IRT disbanded (I think.)  Can Policy & Implementation WG make a 
recommendation as to how long IRT should stay active  or should this be 
included in the GNSO Council Motion based on Councillors opinions and should WG 
recommend Council designate duration of the IRT in its motion?
Consider interplay with new tools for Policy Input and Fast Track PDP:  What if 
there are Council Members who disagree with the direction IRT and Staff are 
going?  If Council members can initiate a Policy Input process or a FastTrack 
PDP, does that potentially put Council at odds with the work of the IRT?  
Should Council be able to override IRT participation in the Implementation 
Process or not?  How do we prevent duplication of work processes on the same 
issues?

  *   How is the IRT expected to operate? Flexibility is critical as IRT is 
very different from a PDP, and each IRT is different from the isues. May not be 
able to be precise on how each IRT functions, but general guidelines might be 
helpful e.g. multistakeholder even in implementation. How to deal with 
disagreement in an IRT? What can be provided that is useful? Outline the types 
of consideration and concerns that IRTs may cover without providing specifics 
on how they may do that to allow for flexibility. Could a Council liaison to 
the IRT serve in a role that could step up if/when needed and issues need to be 
escalated to the Council? Basis for resolving issues could be along lines of 
GNSO WG Guidelines. Guidance process could potentially be used by IRT - could 
ask GNSO Council to invoke process if deemed needed.
  *   What additional mechanisms, if any, should be foreseen for implementation 
related discussions (beyond those that take place with the IRT)? Flexibility is 
important, but some guidance may need to be provided. Currently public comment 
forum is used at end of the process to obtain input from broader community. IRT 
may need a mechanism to obtain input from SG/C as part of their process.


________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message 
or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent 
responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient 
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. 
The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be 
privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the 
intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy 
Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.