Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Updated public comment review tool and proposed "hierarchy" language

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Amr,

In relation to your question concerning the GGP, Annex D specifically says 'and 
it has determined that the intended outcome is not expected to result in new 
contractual obligations for contracted parties (in which case a PDP would need 
to be initiated)’. Do you consider this not to be sufficient? If so, where 
would you like to see additional clarification?

With regards to your point on the EPDP, and apologies for having missed last 
week’s meeting, I’m not sure why you would want to specifically exclude an 
issue for which a previous policy recommendation was rejected as circumstances 
may have changed or new information may have become available (which would need 
to be noted in the scoping request) but for which all the other previous 
scoping information would still be relevant.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday 28 April 2015 09:41
To: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Updated public comment review tool and 
proposed "hierarchy" language

Hi,

I will try to address several issues raised by the NCSG in this email.

First, regarding the voting thresholds to initiate a GGP, I am personally not 
in favour of submitting a minority statement on this issue. Having discussed 
this issue at length with other WG members (for which I am grateful), I do 
understand the valid concerns expressed regarding the notion of raising the 
voting threshold. I can’t say that I agree with the conclusions others have 
reached on this, but I do appreciate the in-depth discussion and consideration 
of the NCSG feedback. I would prefer to adopt the language Mary has suggested 
and a recommendation with full consensus of the WG members rather than submit a 
minority statement on this. Still, this is my personal opinion, and other NCSG 
colleagues who are members of the WG are free to agree or disagree with me as 
they see fit.

On the other hand, I still do not see a recommended action by the WG in the 
public comment review tool (PCRT) regarding the inclusion of “no new 
obligations on registrants” as a prerequisite to initiating a GGP. I ask that 
this be addressed with either an agreement or disagreement of the WG members, 
and clarification of the recommended action.

Finally, regarding the recommended action regarding the NCSG concern of using 
an EPDP for a previously rejected policy, it is currently that the WG believes 
that this is already covered by the prerequisites of the EPDP’s initiation. I’m 
not sure I agree with this. Here are the prerequisites from the initial report:

(1) to address a narrowly defined policy issue that was identified and scoped 
after either the adoption of a GNSO policy recommendation by the ICANN Board or 
the implementation of such an adopted recommendation; or (2) to provide new or 
additional policy recommendations on a specific policy issue that had been 
substantially scoped previously, such that extensive, pertinent background 
information already exists, e.g. (a) in an Issue Report for a possible PDP that 
was not initiated; (b) as part of a previous PDP that was not completed; or (c) 
through other projects such as a GGP.

It seems to me that a policy recommendation that has already been deliberated 
upon, and rejected, would still satisfy either of the two prerequisites for 
initiating an EPDP. My issue with this is that if a previously rejected policy 
needs to be revised, it should be rescoped to introduce issues in an issue 
report that have not been previously considered. An EPDP does not include the 
issue scoping phase of a PDP. I may be missing something here. If I am, I’d 
appreciate it if someone pointed out how “the existing recommendations should 
be viewed to cover the situation highlighted by the NCSG” (from the PCRT).

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 24, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Gomes, Chuck 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Thanks Mary.

All – Please provide any edits you have to Mary’s suggested wording below 
before Wednesday of next week.  Earlier the better so that others can comment.

Chuck

From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:50 PM
To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Updated public comment review tool and proposed 
"hierarchy" language

Dear WG members,

Please find attached the Public Comment Review Tool, updated to reflect the 
discussion and agreement reached on the WG call of Wednesday 22 April.

In addition, here is some proposed language for your consideration, in respect 
of the question of how to deal with the situation where competing requests or 
motions are filed that relate to the same issue:

"Where two or more requests (e.g. in the form of motions) are received by the 
GNSO Council that propose different processes for addressing the same issue, 
the GNSO Council as the manager of the overall policy development process must 
have the flexibility to determine the most appropriate course of action. The WG 
recommends that, in determining the most appropriate course of action, the GNSO 
Council take into account all of the following: (1) the scope of each process, 
as expressly delineated in the ICANN Bylaws and the relevant portions of the 
GNSO Operating Procedures (including the PDP, GGP and EPDP Manuals, as 
applicable); (2) the information contained in the relevant motion, form or 
scoping document requesting the initiation of each process; and (3) any other 
materials and information the Council deems relevant, such as the original 
Board, SO or AC request to the GNSO (if applicable).

The WG believes that according the Council maximum flexibility means that there 
should not be a fixed sequence of precedence or voting in respect of these 
competing requests, i.e. the Council should not approach the matter according 
to when a motion was filed, the voting threshold required to initiate the 
process in question, or the order in which it appears on a meeting agenda. The 
WG therefore recommends that in such cases the Council, guided by Council 
leadership, should engage in a substantive discussion of all the options 
(including all the factors and materials noted above) prior to taking a vote on 
any of them. However, the final outcome of such discussion and voting should be 
that only one motion carries (if at all).”

We look forward to continuing discussion on this list and on our next call. BTW 
I ought to have noted previously that the public comment forum for our Initial 
Report has now been officially closed, and a Report of Public Comments 
published: 
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en 
(sorry for that oversight on my part!).

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>