Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chuck

let me summarize my worries in a few sentences, based on the comments you will 
hear in the recording. While the new mechanisms look very useful and elegant in 
print, I worry about the checks and balances in so far as "who triggers them 
and why". Particularly the third one worries me a lot.

I come from a very old school of "separation of powers", where one entity 
develops policy, another separate one executes it, and if there is trouble they 
both can go to a third entity to solve their differences. The recent letter of 
Senators Thune and Rubio seems to come from this very same school of thought, 
as they ask for clear organisational and or structural separations of functions.

Since the gTLD came into full swing, I could positively see that some kind of 
similar division of powers evolving within ICANN> a separate Division *GDD* was 
created to deal with (and hopefully be responsible) of the new contracts and 
collecting monies, as well as an enforced separate group looking at the 
compliance of those contracts, just to avoid any conflict of interest in the 
GDD with their clients.

For that reason I believe we should be very careful that the mechanisms 
proposed are used only when there are proven problems downstream, i.e. mainly 
with the GDD and or compliance functions and not to everybody for every 
possible argument.

If the mechanism  are used within the GNSO at their discretion, without a well 
grounded reason from their execution and compliance point of view, they risk to 
become a closed feedback loop, that may put into question the policy 
development process that initiated the whole issue.

For that reason, my general comments should be seen under my question of "who 
or what, and on what ground triggers those elegant mechanisms", so as to avoid 
the feeling that the GNSO get additional discretionary powers trough them. I 
think this is important in these time of increased awareness of Accountability 
and Transparency.

Happy to continue in the next WG session if I can make it.

Cheers

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8335 2487 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA






> On Mar 30, 2015, at 1:21 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> Please note that Carlos is a member of the Working Group and participated in 
> the last meeting (including providing further feedback on his comments). 
> Hopefully he’ll be able to join our next meetings as well to be able to 
> answer any follow up questions the WG may have. 
> 
> We’ll fix the template ahead of the next meeting in relation to item 4.18.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Saturday 28 March 2015 22:40
> To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
> 
> On my flight home from Istanbul, I went through the latest version of the 
> comment review document.  Here are some comments and questions I have.
>  
> Who is responsible for performing any action items we identify? Note the 
> following action items identified to date:
> ·         3.7  and multiple other items– we need further input from Carlos; 
> Carlos made a lot of lengthy comments throughout the survey that I think 
> would best be resolved via a conversation with him and the WG.  Let’s talk 
> about this.  Here are the items: 3.7, 4.14, 5.2, 5.11, 5.20, 7.4, 8.4, 13.4, 
> 14.3, G.1.
> ·         4.1 & other items – This wasn’t identified in the action column but 
> rather in the response column.  Several of John Poole’s comments related to 
> the initial error we made in referencing a section of the survey.  Did anyone 
> communicate with him on the fact that the error was corrected?
> ·         4.4 - This wasn’t identified in the action column but rather in the 
> response column.  We discussed asking the RySG to propose alternative 
> language.
>  
> My comments on the items discussed in my absence on 25 March:
> ·         4.7 – The RySG comment was noted.  What do others think about 
> adding the sentence redlined below?
>  
> Principle C.2.c):“Each ofthe principlesin thisdocument mustbe consideredin 
> termsof thedegree towhich theyadhere toandfurther theprinciples definedin 
> ICANN'sCore Valuesas documentedin article2of theICANN by-­-laws 
> (http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#I).P 
> <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#I)>articular note should be 
> made tocore value4: “Seekingand supportingbroad, informedparticipation 
> reflectingthe functional,geographic, andcultural diversityof theInternet 
> atall levelsof policydevelopment anddecision-­-making.”  (The WG notes that 
> informed communication depends on effective communication throughout the 
> community.)
>  
> ·         4.8 – The WG decided to reject the change suggested by the RySG 
> from ‘community’ to ‘GNSO’ because it was felt that it would narrow the scope 
> to exclude affected parties outside of the GNSO from participating.  I 
> actually think the RySG change is correct because the GNSO is the policy 
> management body, not the full community, but I also believe it would be good 
> to deal with the issue the WG identified.  What about the following?
>  
> PrincipleD.1.b: “Changesto GNSOimplementation guidanceneedto beexamined bythe 
> GNSOCouncil or  anotherappropriate entityas designatedby theGNSO 
> Councilonwhere theyfall inthe spectrumof policyand implementation.In 
> allcases, thecommunityGNSO maintainsthe rightto challengewhether suchupdates 
> needfurther reviewfor policyimplications while at the same time recognizing 
> that all impacted parties in the community should be given the opportunity to 
> contribute to the GNSO challenge process.”
>  
> ·         4.14 and later substantial comments by Carlos – As I suggested 
> toward the beginning of my response, I personally think it might be useful 
> and the most time effective to schedule a call with Carlos and the WG or some 
> subset of the WG to have a live discussion of his concerns and possible 
> solutions.
>  
> The NCSG makes some substantial suggestions on at least 11 items. 
> Fortunately, we have some NCSG members in our WG so I think it would be good 
> for us to discuss those when the NCSG members can be present.  Here are the 
> items: 5.4, 5.22, 5.24, 5.31, 7.6, 8.6, 9.6, 11.6, 13.6, 14.5, G.4.
>  
> Likewise, the ALAC makes some substantial suggestions on at least 4 items. 
> Fortunately, we have some ALAC members in our WG so I think it would be good 
> for us to discuss those when the ALAC members can be present.  Here are the 
> items:  5.5/5.6, 5.15, 5.33, G6.
>  
> And the IPC also makes some substantial suggestions on at least 6items. 
> Fortunately, we have some IPC members in our WG so I think it would be good 
> for us to discuss those when the IPC members can be present.  Here are the 
> items:  7.5, 9.5, 10.5, 12.5, 14.4, G.3.
>  
> Marika & I talked briefly in Istanbul.  We have not made as much progress on 
> going through the public comments as we had hoped and may be in jeopardy of 
> missing our target dates.  She suggested that we could get some volunteers 
> (or small groups of volunteers) to draft possible responses for subsets of 
> the items and then present those to the full WG.  Of course we would need 
> volunteers for that to work.  How many of you would be willing to do this?  
> In the cases of the comments from the ALAC, IPC and NCSG, we would need to 
> pair WG members from those respective groups with some who are not from those 
> groups. Please respond to this email if you are willing to contribute in this 
> way.  Another option could be to lengthen our calls from 60 minutes to 90 
> minutes; please respond if you could or could not do that.
>  
> Marika/Mary – Note that we ended up with a sea pair of duplicate items: all 
> of 4.18 appears to be included in 4.19.  I suggest that we delete 4.18 and 
> leave 4.19.  The fact that this only happened once is pretty remarkable 
> considering how much manual entry had to be done.
>  
> Chuck
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the 
> individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information 
> that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from 
> disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work 
> product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that 
> any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is 
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify 
> sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”
>