[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Proposed Agenda - Policy & Implementation WG Meeting

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the proposed agenda for the next meeting of the Policy &
Implementation WG meeting scheduled for Wednesday 29 April at 19.00 UTC. As
a reminder, you will also find hereunder the language circulated by Mary in
relation to comment 5.4 ­ I have not seen any objections to date.

Best regards,

Marika

Proposed Agenda ­ Policy & Implementation Working Group Meeting ­ 29 April
2015

1. Roll call / updates to SO
2. Continue review of public comments from Q10 onwards (see latest version
of public comment review tool, attached)
3. Confirm next steps / next meeting

From:  Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Thursday 23 April 2015 19:50
To:  "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <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).²

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

Attachment: Public comment review tool - updated 23 April 2015.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature