ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-policyimpl-wg]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

REMINDER: FW: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review by Tuesday 16 December - updated processes

  • To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: REMINDER: FW: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review by Tuesday 16 December - updated processes
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:20:20 +0000

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
Description: Comparison processes - 10 December 2014.docx

Attachment: Comparison processes - clean - 10 December 2014.docx
Description: Comparison processes - clean - 10 December 2014.docx



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy