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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Sounds like a plan to me. Thank you so much, Mary.

Amr

> On Aug 11, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hello again everyone,
> 
> To add to Chuck’s comment and Marika’s previous note mentioned by Amr, the 
> language of the GNSO Council resolution adopting the principles developed by 
> this WG is as follows:
> 
> "The GNSO Council adopts the 'Policy & Implementation Principles / 
> Requirements' as outlined in section 4 of the Final Recommendations Report 
> and recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors also (a) adopts these 
> principles / requirements and (b) instructs ICANN staff to follow these 
> accordingly to help guide any future GNSO policy and implementation related 
> work."
> 
> The same language was also used in the Council’s adoption of the principles 
> regarding implementation, and there was a further resolved clause that 
> recommended a review of the recommendations every five years.
> 
> As Marika has also noted, we will follow up with the Board when it comes to 
> consider adoption of the recommendations after the public comment review 
> period for the proposed Bylaws amendment closes.
> 
> This doesn’t preclude the possibility of adding them to the GNSO’s Operating 
> Procedures at some subsequent point, of course, though the Procedures are 
> largely focused on mechanisms and procedural rules. FYI, policy staff has 
> begun looking through the procedures, to see if there may be a need to update 
> some of them following recent changes (such as to the public comment period) 
> and in preparation for any related discussions that the GNSO Council and 
> community may wish to have following the Final Report on the GNSO Review. 
> We’ll be sure to carry forward the points raised by Amr and Greg should these 
> take place.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 13:26
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: [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
> 
>> I wonder if there's some kind of Guide or Manual we could prepare based on 
>> the WG's output.  Even if it is informal/non-binding, it could be useful to 
>> carry forward our principles.
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Amr,
>>> 
>>> I fully agree with you on the importance of the principles.  In that 
>>> regard, I think it is going to be incumbent on all of us who know the 
>>> principles well to bring them up and reinforce them when needs arise.
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 11:03 AM
>>> To: Mary Wong
>>> Cc: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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-recommen
>>> >>>> datio
>>> >>>> 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-recommendatio
>>> >>>> ns-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
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>