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

["J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't see why we could "recommend" that these processes be used, perhaps as 
an example.  Are we concerned that, by doing so, we might create a situation 
whereby the negative reaction would be such that the processes would never be 
put to such good use?  I am confused as to why we can't "recommend" something 
that we thing improves the GNSO procedures. Isn't that the whole point of the 
exercise in the first place?

j. scott evans - associate general counsel - adobe - 408.536.5336 - 
jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx

From: marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx
To: jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx; aaikman@xxxxxxxxxx; aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 16:22:44 +0000






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>

Date: Tuesday 7 April 2015 18:13

To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <aaikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 'Amr Elsadr' 
<aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx"
 <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





From: AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx

To: aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
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

 








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
 | 
www.LRRLaw.com










 







 





 


From:
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

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> 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> 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
 | 
www.LRRLaw.com










 





 





 


From: Mary Wong [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




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




 




 


From:
<Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 14:29

To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 'Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez' 
<crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" 
<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

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
 | 
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

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

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
 | 
www.LRRLaw.com










 





 





 


From: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

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 nowThere 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 processIf 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> 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

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

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>

Date: Saturday 28 March 2015 22:40

To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <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).Particular 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


ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx


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.