Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Until the WG recommendations are finalised and approved both by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board, I don’t think it would be appropriate for the WG to recommend that the response to the GAC communique should refer to these processes. I don’t doubt that once the WG recommendations are adopted and implemented they may be very useful in guiding this work, but I don’t think it would be prudent to make recommendations on the basis of processes that have not been finalised nor adopted yet. Best regards, Marika From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Tuesday 7 April 2015 18:13 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <aaikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aaikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document I think Anne is making some solid points here. j. scott evans - associate general counsel - adobe - 408.536.5336 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx> ________________________________ From: AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> To: aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 01:34:06 +0000 Amr et al, Perhaps what I am saying is that the WG could recommend that in responding to GAC Communiques to the Board and using the tool that Amr showed us, the Council could identify one of the three processes as an appropriate method of addressing each of the issues e.g. a notation such as “GNSO Council to address via GIP, or “to address via GGP” or “to address via EPDP” or GNSO Council considers a full PDP is required to address this issue” or “GNSO Council believes this issue was already addressed via PDP – see Final Report of X Working Group Paragraph Y”. The point here is the same that Greg is making. The GAC Communique is exactly the type of communication that should trigger consideration of these new processes by the GNSO and so it would indeed be handy for the Council to consider this possibility in relation to the form being developed for response to GAC Communiques. The suggestion was definitely not that ONE of the new processes would be suitable for response to the GAC. The suggestion was rather that the GNSO Council could, in responding to the GAC Communique that is sent to the Board, state that intends to use one of the new tools to foster GNSO Input (GIP) or Guidance (GGP) or Policy Development (EPDP) to respond to the GAC’s advice. These three options are of course NOT exclusive since Council is free to respond however it may want to respond to GAC communiques. However, we are trying to standardize processes and build trust and as Greg notes, it would be a shame if the processes were recommended, adopted, and then never actually used. I think it is clear that the timeline will not permit use of these processes to be listed in a response to the Singapore meeting, but it does seem that they could be incorporated down the line and hopefully no later than the Dublin communique (as a goal in terms of time frames.) Anne [cid:image001.gif@01D07098.438453F0] Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 4:28 PM To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document Hi, My personal impression is that the the Council’s approach so far on providing feedback on GAC communiqués has been more about the GNSO Council simply communicating to the ICANN Board (and GAC) where the GNSO stands on any given Advice item — how it has been, or is being, dealt with. It is more of a discussion on a Council process to address GAC Advice on GNSO-related work, rather than a GNSO process. The processes this WG is recommending are initiated following a request to the GNSO to do so. The process being discussed by the Council is initiated following GAC Advice to the Board, not the GNSO. This template currently being envisioned as a tool to that end may be helpful in understanding this a little more: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-24feb15-en.pdf However, none of that is to say that a result of one of these templates from the GNSO Council to the ICANN Board (and cc’d to the GAC) could not result in either the Board or the GAC requesting that the GNSO initiate a process to explore the issue at hand. That could very likely be a possibility, and one of the processes being developed here could come in handy in a situation like this. I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that only one of the processes would be suitable. I guess it would depend on what questions the GNSO is trying to answer. In any case, I would be happy, in my capacity as one of the Council liaisons to this WG, to relay any message the WG Chairs or members would like to have communicated to the Council on this matter. Thanks. Amr On Apr 2, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: It might be an interesting exercise to discuss these mechanisms specifically with the Council, given that these are being created for the Council to use, in a sense. I think we also anticipate that the Council would use one of these mechanism for any sort of GNSO policy utterance, unless it was wholly unsuited to the purpose. Our work would be a waste if we created these mechanisms and the Council went on its merry way making up ad hoc response processes, while neglecting our creations like a set of gift golf clubs in the closet. Greg On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: Thanks Mary. As far as I know, although Council is aware of our work, there has been no specific discussion of the possibility of reacting to GAC communiques within the suggested framework of using these tools. Thank you, Anne <image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:38 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document Hello everyone – just to note that the GNSO Council has been discussing a possible approach for the provision of GNSO feedback pertaining to issues that may be raised or impacted by points made in GAC Communiques. Note that, since the GAC provides its advice via Communique directly to the Board, the Council’s discussions have largely centered on developing a structured method of providing GNSO input to the Board as well. It may be that the GIP could be an appropriate mechanism for some items in the future, but we thought this WG might like to know that the Council is also discussing this specific topic (while also aware of the recommendations our group is making). Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 14:29 To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document Thanks for the good feedback Anne. The clarification on the GAC communiques makes sense. Chuck From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:08 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document Hi Chuck, I would defer to Amr on the question of the proposed change in language about GNSO challenges to implementation measures. We should also see what Alan, Cheryl, Carlos, and others have to say, however. Regarding reaction to GAC communiques, I was not suggesting that one of the new processes be deployed to respond. I was suggesting that when the GAC identifies implementation issues in its communique, the GNSO should determine on an issue-by-issue basis ( and advise the Board in writing) whether it can treat the GAC concerns best by 1. Not responding or responding that the issue was already treated thoroughly in a PDP. 2. Responding that IRT and staff should deal with the issue 3. Initiating a GIP 4. Initiating a GGP or 5. Initiating an EPDP. I just think it would be very helpful for GNSO to put each of the GAC issues in one of these “buckets” because very often it is a GAC communique that triggers the need for issue resolution – and very often there is time pressure on the issue for one reason or another. Thank you, Anne <image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 4:44 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document Thanks very much for the very thoughtful comments. Please see my responses below. Chuck From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 1:14 PM To: 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez'; Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document Carlos and Chuck, I have been following this thread to some degree and wanted to make some comments before tomorrow’s call: 1. I do not think that the WG proposals expand GNSO “discretionary powers” in any way. As I understand it, we are simply providing more standardized mechanisms for providing GNSO input and policy-making/implantation processes so that the processes that get followed are not so “ad hoc” (as were those that we studied at the beginning of our work). In my view, increasing the standardization of the processes will lead to more trust in the community. In other words, these processes themselves create “checks and balances” in the system (per Carlos’ comment) because it is assumed that one of the three standard processes will in fact fit the changed circumstances or need to address issues during the implementation phase. As we all know, some of these “changed circumstances” arise due to late-breaking facts (e.g. name collision) or to late-breaking advice (e.g. in the case of the GAC.) Our assumption must be that these things will occur and we need to be prepared to address them in a systematic fashion as they arise. [Chuck Gomes] Makes sense to me but I would be surprised (and pleased) if the one of the three processes covered all changed circumstances. 2. Per my comments on the last call, I still think the WG should not continue to pretend that only the GNSO makes policy. One need only look at issues like GAC Safeguards, IGO/NGO, and two letter registrations at the second level to develop a full appreciation of how policy really works in ICANN. GNSO is the primary policy-making body but the policy GNSO makes is a matter of recommendations. If this were not so, there would not be a provision in the By-Laws which states that there is a Board voting threshold for acting against a GNSO policy recommendation. We are not going to change this through the efforts of our WG because we cannot stop the special position of GAC advice under the By-Laws or stop the fact that governments legislate and SOs and Committees other than the GAC do not make binding laws. Then there is the fact that certain groups, e.g. ALAC, do not have a vote on the GNSO, but certainly have the ability to influence policy and make policy recommendations directly to the Board (e.g. with respect to a letter to the Board recommending “freezing” certain gTLDs that carry higher consumer risk.) Either the WG is recommending processes in which the entire community can participate or it is acting in a GNSO “vacuum”. I had thought the intent of our WG was to supply work that would be helpful to the entire community. (Thus, I do not like the suggested RySG proposed change in principles which states that the GNSO reserves the right to challenge implementation, rather than the principle that the community reserves the right to challenge implementation. Based on the new standardized procedures we are recommending, any other body within ICANN should be able to bring an issue to the GNSO in order to initiate a challenge. It would be a great result if the GAC ultimately decided to pursue one of its issues through a GNSO process. (They may say I’m a dreamer.) [Chuck Gomes] Did you see the compromise language I proposed on the RySG recommendation? I didn’t test it with the RySG but I think it would accomplish what was intended in the suggested change. The RySG did not intend the change from ‘community’ to ‘GNSO’ to mean that community members outside of the GNSO could not contribute but rather to reflect the fact that the GNSO is responsible for gTLD policy work and hence should be responsible for challenging any implementation steps that it believes is beyond what was intended in the policy. That said, I am not prepared to fight hard for the change. 3. I agree that “separation of powers” is one reason the WG was formed. The community reacted to the fact that it was unwilling to let the ICANN Board and staff determine implementation issues that might raise policy considerations. Then the WG determined that if there are issues during implementation, what is most important is NOT how the issue is characterized, but rather, does ICANN itself have efficient means of dealing with issues as they arise? This is the underlying logic for the three mechanisms that are being proposed. [Chuck Gomes] If separation of powers means that policy development power is separated from policy implementation power, then I don’t agree. The GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations and for ensuring that those recommendations are implemented appropriately. I don’t think that that responsibility should be delegated to staff without GNSO oversight. I do agree though that the three processes we have proposed are designed to provide ways of dealing with issues as they arise. 4. With respect to working out issues that arise during implementation with other bodies within ICANN that influence policy enacted by the ICANN Board, the need for greater coordination has certainly been recognized. For example, Mason is now the GAC liaison and there is a trial program in place for involving the GAC early on in the PDP Issue Scoping phase (see notes from March 19 GNSO Council meeting). Our WG should also be looking at how best to involve the GAC (and other non-GNSO voting bodies) in the three new processes that are being recommended. For example, right now the GNSO is developing a “template” for response to the Singapore GAC communique. I am watching this and saying to myself – this is EXACTLY why we need the standardized processes we have been working on. To my mind, in the future, the GNSO should be using the GIP or the GGP or the EPDP to respond to the GAC Communiques and advising the Board which of these processes should be used with respect to each issue raised by the GAC communique. [Chuck Gomes] In my opinion, the GIP could be a good tool for this. It is less clear that the GGP would work very well and I definitely do not think that the EPDP would fit. Both would probably take too long and the Council needs to respond to the GAC in a timely manner. And I don’t think the EPDP restrictions would be applicable in most cases of GAC communiques, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. I look forward to our continuing discussions and like all of you, am hopeful that these recommendations can actually make the ICANN policy AND implementation process function more smoothly, thereby increasing trust in the DNS both inside and outside the community. Anne <image001.gif> Anne E. Aikman-Scalese, Of Counsel Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP | One South Church Avenue Suite 700 | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 (T) 520.629.4428 | (F) 520.879.4725 AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx> | www.LRRLaw.com<http://www.lrrlaw.com/> From:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:27 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Marika Konings; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document 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<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 1:19 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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] 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%29>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.” ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gsshatan@xxxxxxxxxxx> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. Attachment:
image001.gif
|
