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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Amr,

Apologies, I misread your first comment. It would be helpful if you could be 
more specifics with regards to your examples and related concerns concerning 
the URS and UDRP. As far as I understand, these processes set out the rules for 
registrants, but I am not aware of any obligations that are created that are 
enforceable in a similar way as consensus policies are enforceable on 
contracted parties.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday 28 April 2015 11:10
To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 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,

On Apr 28, 2015, at 4:21 PM, Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

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?

This came up when the NCSG held a webinar to cover this WG's initial report. 
The issue that was identified was that there are Consensus Policies that do not 
necessarily involve new contractual obligations for contracted parties, but may 
create new obligations on registrants. The examples provided were changes to 
the UDRP or URS.

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.

Hmm. That's a good point. Thanks for making it. The intent of the NCSG comment 
here is to prevent abuse of this process as a tool to reopen a previously 
explored policy issue only because a stakeholder didn't like the conclusion of 
a previously held process on the same policy. Let me think about this some more 
between now and tomorrow's call.

Thanks again.

Amr