REMINDER: FW: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review by Tuesday 16 December - updated processes
Reminder - please provide your input by Tuesday 16 December at the latest. From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> Date: Thursday 11 December 2014 11:07 To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review by Tuesday 16 December - updated processes Dear All, During the Policy & Implementation WG meeting of yesterday, the following was agreed by those on the call: * Deadline for any further comments / edits on three processes by Tuesday 16 December at the latest (see latest draft attached) * Target for delivery of draft Initial Report by 22 December for WG review (target date for publication for public comment remains 19 January) * Initial Report does not need to be perfect - some work may need to continue in parallel. Missing the opportunity of discussing / presenting the report during the ICANN meeting in Singapore would be very unfortunate and should be avoided by all means. * No live editing today to focus on comments / suggestions that will be captured in the next draft that will be circulated on the mailing list. * If needed, a small group may be formed after the meeting next week to clean up the language and ensure that there are no inconsistencies between the different processes. (Michael has volunteered to take the lead, if needed) Attached you'll find an updated version of the comparison document which incorporates the comments / edits discussed during yesterday's meeting. For completeness, I've also added at the end of the document the proposed bylaw provisions for the GGP and EPDP, including comments that were provided by Anne and Chuck (and my responses to some of those). As agreed, I've also attempted to address or respond to some of the other comments made in the document that we were not able to discuss so that further discussion on these items can occur on the mailing list, if needed. Also, I want to highlight some of the outstanding questions that staff flagged in this document to encourage discussion on the list: * Should an Advisory Committee or the Board have the ability to initiate a GGP (similar to their ability to do so for a PDP)? Chuck and Anne have suggested in their comments that this should be possible. * For an EPDP, it is currently proposed that only the GNSO Council can initiate this process, although an AC/Board could request the GNSO Council to consider doing so. Chuck and Anne have supported this approach in their comments. Do others agree or have different views? * The proposed voting threshold for initiating a GGP is the same as for initiating a PDP (an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House) - do WG members agree? * The proposed voting threshold for approving the GGP Final Report is supermajority - do WG members agree? (Note, for a PDP vote, if these are not adopted by a supermajority vote, there is a lower threshold for the Board to overturn these, should the same apply here or if there is no supermajority report, the GGD Final Report fails?) * Termination of a GGP - it is proposed that a simple majority vote would be sufficient to terminate a GGP prior to delivery of the Final Report (compared to a supermajority vote for a PDP) - do WG members agree? Note, some of these questions may also be called out as specific items for input as part of the Initial Report. As some have asked about the main differences between these processes, it may be worth emphasising again that the main difference lies in the intended outcome of each process, and on that basis the Council is expected to make a decision which process is the most appropriate to use: * Is the Council intending to provide non-binding input - then a GIP should be used. * Is the Council intending to provide guidance that will require board consideration, but is not expected to result in new contractual obligations for contracted parties - then a GGP should be used. * Is the Council intending to develop recommendations resulting in new contractual obligations for contracted parties that meet the criteria for "consensus policies" than a PDP or EPDP (if qualifying criteria are met) should be used. To facilitate your review, I've also included a clean version in which all redlines and comments have been removed. Please provide any comments, edits or questions you may have by Tuesday 16 December at the latest. Thanks, Marika Attachment:
Comparison processes - 10 December 2014.docx Attachment:
Comparison processes - clean - 10 December 2014.docx |