ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-policyimpl-wg]


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

[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Revised Initial Report and list of outstanding items

  • To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Revised Initial Report and list of outstanding items
  • From: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 14:17:53 +0000

Dear All,

Thank you for all your input and comments to date. You will find attached an 
updated version of the draft Initial Report in which I’ve accepted all edits 
that were not subject to green or yellow highlighted comments, incorporated 
some suggestions received, proposed revised wording for binding/non-binding and 
added a proposed executive summary. This leaves the following issues for 
discussion during our upcoming call:


  *   Page 1 & page 19.: From Chuck - When we initiate the public comment 
period on the Initial Report, I think we should provide a template for comments 
so that comments received will be organised in the same way. I think that will 
make it easier for us to review and analyse comments. In the instructions 
template, we can make it clear that it is not necessary to respond to every 
topic/category. & When the public comment period is initiated, I suggest that 
in addition to asking for comments, we also ask respondents to complete a 
Google Form that includes questions or statements like these with clear 
response choices on a scale from 1-5 or whatever we think is best. I don’t 
think it is very useful to ask for narrative comments in the Google form; 
narrative comments should be submitted separately. The Google form would 
encourage clear responses that are say to tabulate and summarise as well as 
increasing the number of responses we get in our questions.
  *   Page 5: From Chuck – If a text comment template is used for public 
comments in addition to a survey instrument of multiple choice questions or 
statements, it might not be necessary to allow for comments within the survey 
itself would likely make it easier to correlate the comments to the item in the 
survey, so I like the idea summing the survey system used allows for it.
  *   Page 12: From Chuck – I still find this to be awkward but because we 
spent so much time trying to edit it in last week’s call I decided to suggest 
alternative wording in my comment rather than making it in the document. My 
suggestion follows with the unchanged wording in black font and new wording in 
italic font: “A fundamental principle of ICANN’s participation and policy 
development decision-making process whereby policy and organisational decisions 
and analysis originate with stakeholders who participate in the process and 
then develop recommendations for consideration by the broader community and 
ultimately by the Board as applicable. The processes used are designed to 
provide equal opportunity for participation by all Stakeholders as practically 
possible”.
  *   Page 13 – Preliminary Recommendation #1 – The WG recommends that the 
following principles are adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board to guide 
any future policy and implementation related work. Comment from Chuck: At least 
two people last week suggested that the principles were developed for use by 
the WG and therefore not intended as principles that are part of the P&I WG 
recommendations. I definitely think that they have been useful for the WG but 
ask everyone to read them again. I am pretty sure that you will find that they 
are written to be applied n the community when policy and implementation issues 
arise and therefore a critical element of the WG Recommendations. We need to 
discuss this in our call on 14 Jan.
  *   Page 14 – changed ‘efforts’ to ‘processes’ - Comment from Chuck: Note 
that this does not apply to P&I WG efforts but rather to P&I processes.
  *   Page 17 - ‘there should be a mechanism to flag and address unanticipated 
outcomes of implementation decisions that may significantly impact the 
community; there should be a mechanism to flag and address situations whee 
there may be a deviation between the implementation and the policy as it was 
originally intended’ - comment from Chuck: Have we included such mechanisms? 
Should we? Or should we leave it to the GNSO to develop them?
  *   Page 18 – updated definition of binding - non–binding to address Anne’s 
questions: ’Non-binding advice’ means advice that has no binding force on the 
party it is provided to’ and ‘“Binding guidance” means advice that has a 
binding force on the Board to consider the guidance and it can only be rejected 
by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, if the Board determines 
that such guidance is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN”.
  *   Page 20 – 'it is proposed that it would be sufficient to require a simple 
majority Council vote as defined in GNSO procedures’ - Comment from Michael: 
Unclear what would be sufficient. [Note, the addition of a simple majority 
Council vote may have addressed this comment?]
  *   Page 25 - ’that it would be unlikely that any formal leadership roles 
would be needed’ - Comment from Chuck: Is this true? In my opinion, even if the 
role is minimal, it is always helpful to have someone who has the 
responsibility to keep things moving and do any coordination that is necessary. 
[Response from Marika: in an IRT is is the staff’s responsibility to keep 
things moving forward and co-ordinate as necessary with the members of the IRT. 
]
  *   Page 25 – suggested moving up of paragraph starting with ‘the WG noted 
that the principles should be used…’
  *   Page 26 – proposed edit to reflect that it is the IRT that is expected to 
formally raise issues with the GNSO Council.
  *   Page 29 – proposed text to address what process(es) is (are) to be used 
for addressing implementation / policy issues raised by the IRT (charter 
question 4) and what role does the Board play, if any, in addressing 
implementation concerns from the GNSO Council (charter question 3 & 4) - no 
further comments?
  *   Page 85 - ‘To be defined following WG agreement on the above operating 
principles’ - is everyone ok leaving it like this for now?
  *   Page 86 – Membership & attendance table. Comment from Chuck – I think we 
should break this into two lists, one with those who really did participate and 
another with original volunteers who did not participate except in possible an 
early meeting.

Speak to you later.

Best regards,

Marika

Attachment: PI Initial Report Updated - 14 January 2015.docx
Description: PI Initial Report Updated - 14 January 2015.docx



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy