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

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Chuck,

sorry but i was away from my PC this morning and could not go back to the 
GGP/GIP/EPDP definitions. My answer to your last question is basically yes:

There should a clearer argument why this requests go back to the original 
source, and not to higher (appellate?) instance, and 
Why it differs from the review a redress path (is it for speed? cost? else?) 
that is being thoroughly reviewed somewhere else right now
There should be a minimum threshold of the arguments for the request, 
explaining why is there need for the clarification, and not just another run at 
trying to change decisions in retrospect. And it should come from affected 
parties directly.
The threshold should increase from GGP to GIP, and even more to EPDP. I’m 
afraid there will be more controversy with the last one.
Are the groups proposed to deal with all this GGP/GIP/EPDP work be sustainable 
over time, representative of the community, or do they risk to be captured by 
other parts of the system, so the can delegate their responsibility?
There should also be a recognition that the world became much more complex, 
with the jump form 30 to a 1’000 Domain Names, and that the GNSO is not going 
to be the solving all issues that will arise in the future, PARTICULARLY if the 
GDD or the Compliance functions have NOT done there work in a proper manner. 
And don’t get me wrong here, the separation of power i’m talking about is 
“horizontal” between the different steps in the policy to contract to business 
process
If there is a (what I would call a ) “vertical" problem between GNSO and Board 
as you mention, then a pdp will not solve it

To put it in a nutshell, my impression is that we need a clearer and compelling 
argument ready to the question that will certainly pop up at some point: If the 
GNSO did his work right in the first place, why do we need this new stuff??? 

And here the length of the document does not cover lack of the background  you 
know so well,  but newbies like me with just 5 years in the backbench don’t 
fully understand. And you are right on another thing: I didn’t like the survey 
questionnaire. Just by agreeing to all individual elements, can we 
automatically can assume the whole effort is on solid ground. Economists get 
burned easily by marginal analysis that looks only at the cost of the last unit 
produced.

Thank you very much

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 1:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Am I correct Carlos that in referring to the mechanisms you mean the GNSO 
> Guidance Process (GGP), GNSO Input Process (GIP) and the Expedited PDP 
> (EPDP)?  If so, the descriptions of each of those processes explains who can 
> initiate them.  Do you think that more information is needed?  If so, 
> specific suggestions would be helpful.
>  
> If I understand correctly, I agree with you that requests for initiation of 
> one the three processes should be accompanied with a strong case.  That would 
> then allow the GNSO Council to make the best decision possible as to whether 
> or not to initiate one of them.  Of course, several of the questions we asked 
> in the request for comments survey relate to that.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Carlos Raúl G. [mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 12:12 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review 
> document
>  
> 
> 
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8837 7176 (New Number)
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> 
> El mar 30, 2015, a las 9:49, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> escribió:
> 
> Carlos,
>  
> I just finished listening to the recording and found it very helpful.  Thank 
> you for your comments in the meeting and below.  Please see my responses 
> inserted below.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez [mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>] 
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:02 AM
> To: Marika Konings
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review 
> document
> Importance: High
>  
> 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.
> [Chuck Gomes] In the new TLD program implementation, the position of extreme 
> separation of powers that the Board and staff took cause some serious 
> problems. Staff and the Board took the position that if an issue was 
> implementation, then they could essentially take care of it on their own and 
> didn’t need to involve the GNSO.  That was a primary reason for the creation 
> of the P&I WG.
>  
> Separation of powers is always good if there is an effective independent 
> review and redress mechanism for the Board decision of approving the policy 
> in the first place. Agree it does not seem to be the case today. 
> 
> 
>  
> 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.
> [Chuck Gomes] I don’t think I understand your point here. What mechanisms are 
> you talking about?  The GDD is the body that will be tasked with 
> implementation so I understand the reference to the GDD but compliance 
> wouldn’t come into play directly until after a policy is implemented although 
> we might consult with them in policy and implementation work to obtain their 
> input as needed.  What do you mean “that the mechanisms proposed are used 
> only when there are proven problems downstream”?  The purpose of our 
> principles and recommendations are to avoid problems in the future not to 
> react to problems.
>  
> For that reason I'm only asking for a very clear explanation of the triggers 
> to the consultation 
> 
>  
>  
> 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.
> [Chuck Gomes] Again, I do not understand what you are saying.  What 
> mechanisms are you talking about? What closed feedback loop? One of the main 
> purposes of the principles and recommendations we are proposing is to ensure 
> that the policy development process is not compromised.
>  
> Sorry I haven't learned by hearth the names of the 3 type s of consultations. 
> 
>  
> 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.
> [Chuck Gomes] This also is hard to understand because I don’t know what 
> mechanisms you are talking about.  Also, what do you mean by “get additional 
> discretionary powers” of the GNSO?
>  
> If the policy is out and approved by the Board, the revision should be 
> triggered outside of the GNSO with ver compelling arguments. I rest my case.
> 
>  
> Happy to continue in the next WG session if I can make it.
>  
> Cheers
>  
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> _____________________
> 
> email: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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 mustbeconsideredin 
> termsof thedegree towhich theyadheretoandfurther theprinciples definedin 
> ICANN'sCore Valuesasdocumentedin 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: “Seekingandsupportingbroad, informedparticipation 
> reflectingthefunctional,geographic, andcultural diversityof theInternet 
> atalllevelsof 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 guidanceneedtobeexamined bythe 
> GNSOCouncil or  anotherappropriate entityasdesignatedby theGNSO 
> Councilonwhere theyfall inthe spectrumofpolicyand implementation.In allcases, 
> thecommunityGNSOmaintainsthe rightto challengewhether suchupdates 
> needfurtherreviewfor 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.”
>