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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes…, I think something to that effect would do nicely.

Thanks.

Amr

On Apr 28, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Would it make sense to add something like the following to the EDRP:  “The 
> EDRP should not be used 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.”?
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:11 AM
> To: Marika Konings
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Mary Wong; 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> 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