Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Amr,

With regards to Anne's comments, if I understood correctly, she noted that the 
outcome of a GGP could also be a recommendation to commence an EPDP or PDP on a 
certain topic if it would become obvious during the course of the GGP that 
consensus policy is required to address the topic. I confirmed that this is 
also listed in the Initial Report as one of the possible outcomes of a GGP ('j. 
Recommendations on future guidance or policy development process activities').

In relation to hierarchy of process, I am happy to take this question back to 
my legal colleagues if deemed helpful to see whether there is an automatic 
hierarchy (e.g. Policy development trumps guidance development) or whether that 
would need to be specified by the WG in the bylaws / GNSO Operating Procedures.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 9 April 2015 12:57
To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On Thresholds to Initiate GGP/EPDP

Hi,

I just listened to the recording of the portion of the call that I had trouble 
following last night, and would like to reflect on some of it.

I think some very significant concerns were raised by pretty much everyone who 
spoke to the notion of raising the voting thresholds to initiate a GGP or an 
EPDP. In voicing the concerns raised by myself and the NCSG, the intent was 
certainly not to allow procedure to block substance, or even block the more 
effective means to hold a discussion on any given policy issue.

If there are suggestions on how to avoid GGPs/EPDPs trumping PDPs ONLY when it 
is inappropriate for them to do so besides raising the voting thresholds to 
initiate them, I would be more than happy to explore those possibilities.

There were some suggestions I found to be interesting including one by Marika 
(a hierarchy of processes) and another by Alan (a sort of standard motion). I 
would like to also stress that in raising these concerns, avoiding potential 
gaming of the process is just as important as ensuring that the processes we 
are suggesting don't trump PDPs when a PDPs are necessary.

I also recall Anne making a suggestion that I really appreciated at the time, 
but I missed those in my notes, and the recording seems to have ended before 
she made it. Would really appreciate a refresher on that, if possible.

Thanks again to all.

Amr