[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] ICANN News Alert -- Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments‹GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mary,

Yes…, this certainly makes sense. Still just curious how/if the recommended 
principles will somehow be adopted. Combining those principles with both the 
traditional PDP and the new processes changes the nature of how gTLD policy is 
developed and implemented (for the better, I hope). The way I see it, this was 
ultimately what this WG was chartered to do. The idea was never to propose new 
processes just for the sake of having new processes, but rather on how the 
community can remain engaged during implementation, and address any 
policy-related challenges that arise as a result.

To be clear, I’m not complaining or anything. Adopting these new processes is 
great, and I look forward to the GNSO putting them to good use. Marika also did 
helpfully suggest possibilities on how adoption of the principles could happen 
on another thread. I guess I’m just (perhaps a bit eagerly) waiting to see how 
this all plays out in the end. IMHO, the principles developed by the WG are 
truly fantastic, and could provide great guidance on how to address development 
and implementation of gTLD policy for both the GNSO as well as other SOs/ACs 
(and beyond).

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Aug 10, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Gulp, I meant, of course, to say "Annexes to the EPDP and the GGP” in the
> second sentence; sorry!
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Mary Wong
> <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:19
> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re:
> [gnso-policyimpl-wg] ICANN News Alert -- Proposed ICANN Bylaws
> Amendments‹GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations
> 
>> Hi Amr - thanks for bringing up this question to the group. You are right
>> about the objective of the new processes, of course, but note that the
>> proposed Bylaw changes are meant only to incorporate the two new processes
>> that affect voting thresholds and adoption levels. As such, the intent
>> there is to have the Bylaws more fully reflect the policy processes of the
>> GNSO - since the Bylaws at the moment only refer to one (the PDP). That’s
>> why the GIP is not included, and that’s also why the Annexes to the EPDP
>> and the GIP (which will be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures much as
>> the PDP Manual now is) were.
>> 
>> The wording in the new Annexes about implementation basically also track
>> that of the PDP Manual, so again this was for consistency and certainty.
>> It would therefore be quite a different exercise to add one out of the
>> various Principles that the WG developed to the Bylaws.
>> 
>> 
>> I hope this helps.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>> 
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Amr Elsadr
>> <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 09:16
>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>,
>> "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] ICANN News Alert --
>> Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments‹GNSO Policy & Implementation
>> Recommendations
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Apologies for the late response to this thread, but I’ve been very busy
>>> these past weeks moving back to Cairo from Tromsø.
>>> 
>>> I have a slight concern that is associated with a question I had on
>>> another thread regarding how the recommended principles in the final
>>> report would be addressed.
>>> 
>>> I probably need to go through this all a great deal more thoroughly, and
>>> will do so before drafting a statement for the public comment period, but
>>> this is my take right now:
>>> 
>>> It was my feeling that the intent of the WG final recommendations was to
>>> empower the chartering organization (GNSO council) to be involved in the
>>> guidance of implementation of policies. This was very carefully worded in
>>> principle B4
>>> 
>>>> Whilst implementation processes as such need not always function in a
>>>> purely bottom-up manner, in all cases the relevant policy development
>>>> body (e.g., the chartering organization) must have the opportunity to be
>>>> involved during implementation, to provide guidance on the
>>>> implementation of the policies as recommended by the GNSO.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This principle has not, as far as I can tell, been adequately addressed
>>> in the proposed amendments to the bylaws. In fact, it seems to me that
>>> excluding it — while including other details in the new processes where
>>> the board directs ICANN staff to work with the GNSO on implementation
>>> plans “if deemed necessary” based on the recommendations in the EPDP or
>>> GGP final report — makes the decision of an IRT being chartered to work
>>> with staff implementing policies one of the ICANN board, not the GNSO
>>> council.
>>> 
>>> Am I reading too much into this?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 3, 2015, at 3:09 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much Marika.
>>>> 
>>>> Chuck
>>>> 
>>>> From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 3:21 AM
>>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments‹GNSO
>>>> Policy & Implementation Recommendations
>>>> 
>>>> That is correct – the only things that were updated were references to
>>>> other sections in the ICANN Bylaws; the voting thresholds were added to
>>>> Section X.3-9 as they were defined in other parts of the report; in
>>>> footnote 1 ‘supermajority vote of the GNSO Council’ was changed to ‘a
>>>> GNSO supermajority vote’, and; duplicative definitions that were
>>>> originally in section 9 ‘additional definitions’ were removed.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Marika
>>>> 
>>>> From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: Sunday 2 August 2015 23:31
>>>> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Subject: RE: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO
>>>> Policy & Implementation Recommendations
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Marika.  Glad to see this moving forward.  I did a quick review
>>>> of the Bylaws changes and didn’t note any significant changes to what we
>>>> proposed.  Am I correct on that?
>>>> 
>>>> Chuck
>>>> 
>>>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 4:01 AM
>>>> To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed ICANN
>>>> Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> For your information.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Marika
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: 1 augustus 2015 05:24:16 CEST
>>>> To: <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO
>>>> Policy & Implementation Recommendations
>>>> Reply-To: communications@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> News Alert
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-31-en
>>>> 
>>>> Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation
>>>> Recommendations
>>>> 31 July 2015
>>>> 
>>>> Forum Announcement:
>>>> Comment Period Opens on
>>>> Date:
>>>> 31 July 2015
>>>> Categories/Tags:
>>>> Policy Processes
>>>> Purpose (Brief):
>>>> During its meeting on 24 June 2015, the GNSO Council unanimously
>>>> adopted the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working
>>>> Group 
>>>> (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendatio
>>>> n
>>>> s-01jun15-en.pdf), which was tasked to address a number of questions as
>>>> they relate to GNSO policy and implementation. Among others, these
>>>> recommendations include three proposed new GNSO processes, two of
>>>> which—the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and the GNSO Expedited Policy
>>>> Development Process (EPDP)—require changes to the ICANN Bylaws1 subject
>>>> to ICANN Board approval. Per its resolution of 28 July 2015 (see:
>>>> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en
>>>> #
>>>> 1.c), the ICANN Board has directed that these proposed changes to the
>>>> ICANN Bylaws be posted for public comment prior to ICANN Board
>>>> consideration.
>>>> Public Comment Box Link:
>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en
>>>> 1These proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws are accompanied by a GGP
>>>> and EPDP Manual, which can be found in Annex D and F of the GNSO Policy
>>>> & Implementation Final Report (see:
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01
>>>> j
>>>> un15-en.pdf) and would be incorporated into the GNSO Operating
>>>> Procedures following adoption of the proposed ICANN Bylaws changes by
>>>> the ICANN Board.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This message was sent to marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx from:
>>>> ICANN News Alert | communications@xxxxxxxxx | ICANN | 12025 Waterfront
>>>> Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>>>> Email Marketing by
>>>> 
>>>> Manage Your Subscription
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>