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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I agree with Marika and Michael, but may have read less into what Anne was 
suggesting. I don’t think it was her intent to suggest that they processes be 
used before this WG’s recommendations are endorsed by the G-Council and adopted 
by the ICANN Board. Seems to me that she only (rightly) pointed out an area 
where the processes that we are developing may be of particular usefulness. I 
certainly agree with that.

On the other hand, I don’t share the concern that others may have regarding 
these processes never being put to good use. In my humble experience, I believe 
that there have been numerous occasions in the not too distant past where 
useful solutions like the ones we’ve come up with would have made things a lot 
easier for the GNSO Council to do its work. This isn’t exclusive to GAC Advice 
either. Specification 13 of the RA is one issue that comes to mind — where the 
ICANN Board specifically asked for GNSO feedback on something impacting gTLD 
policy development.

I don’t see why there should be a concern about this WG’s recommendations not 
being effectively used, when there is a clear and practical need for them as 
tools at the GNSO’s disposal.

Am I missing something?

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> To add to Michael’s message, I do believe the idea was to include a couple of 
> use cases in the Final Report which would show how these processes could work 
> in practice, but I had thought that for those use cases we would use some of 
> the examples the WG reviewed for which the GNSO Council had used ad-hoc 
> processes in the past, but I guess we could also point to initiatives that 
> are currently under development.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika
> 
> From: "Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday 7 April 2015 18:38
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "J. Scott Evans" 
> <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "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
> 
> From a practical/procedural standpoint, I would agree with Marika that we 
> could utilize an annotation to the GAC Communique, pointing out possible New 
> Processes that could be utilized, to illustrate the usefulness and 
> applicability of the proposed processes.  And I agree with her reluctance to 
> press these forward as processes that SHOULD be used when they have not been 
> reviewed/approved by Counsel.  I am afraid this would make the Final Proposal 
> the subject of procedural objection before it could be considered and 
> approved as establishing new processes for GNSO consideration. 
>  
> Cart and Horse question, I think.
>  
> Michael R. Graham
> Senior Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property
> Expedia Legal & Corporate Affairs
> T +1 425.679.4330 | F +1 425.679.7251
> M +1 425.241.1459
> Expedia, Inc.
> 333 108th Avenue NE | Bellevue | WA 98004
> MiGraham@xxxxxxxxxxx
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message may contain private, 
> confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended 
> recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this message by others is 
> strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please (i) 
> contact the sender immediately; and (ii) permanently delete the original and 
> any copies of the message including file attachments.  Thank you for your 
> cooperation.
>  
> 
>  
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 9:31 AM
> To: J. Scott Evans; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Amr Elsadr'; 
> gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review 
> document
>  
> If the idea is to include the GAC communique as an example which could make 
> use of these processes at a future stage, I don’t have any issue with that. 
> My concern is about recommending now to the GNSO Council the use of these 
> processes (or by Dublin) as Anne references in her email before these are 
> finalised and approved by the WG, GNSO Council and ICANN Board. 
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Marika
>  
> From: "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday 7 April 2015 18:26
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, "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 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
>  
> <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 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 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> 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.
> <image001.gif>