[gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] 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 Re

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Might be worth pursuing further if staff has the bandwidth to help us.

Chuck

From: Michael Graham (ELCA) [mailto:migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 1:28 PM
To: Greg Shatan; Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Amr Elsadr; Mary Wong; gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] 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 Re

Interesting idea.

Michael R. Graham
Senior Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property
Expedia Legal & Corporate Affairs
T +1 425.679.4330 | F +1 425.679.7251
M +1 425.241.1459
Expedia, Inc.
333 108th Avenue NE | Bellevue | WA 98004
MiGraham@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:MiGraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message may contain private, 
confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended 
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this message by others is 
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please (i) contact 
the sender immediately; and (ii) permanently delete the original and any copies 
of the message including file attachments.  Thank you for your cooperation.


From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:26 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>; Mary Wong 
<mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>; 
gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] 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 Rec...

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<mailto: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> 
[mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
>  on behalf of Mary Wong
> <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 11:19
> To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889>
>> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> <owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>  on behalf of Amr Elsadr
>> <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> Date: Monday, August 10, 2015 at 09:16
>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> Cc: Marika Konings 
>> <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>,
>> "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
>> <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much Marika.
>>>>
>>>> Chuck
>>>>
>>>> From: Marika Konings 
>>>> [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 3:21 AM
>>>> To: Gomes, Chuck; 
>>>> gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>> Date: Sunday 2 August 2015 23:31
>>>> To: Marika Konings 
>>>> <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>,
>>>> "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
>>>> <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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>
>>>> [mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:communications@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>> Date: 1 augustus 2015 05:24:16 CEST
>>>> To: <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>>> Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO
>>>> Policy & Implementation Recommendations
>>>> Reply-To: communications@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> from:
>>>> ICANN News Alert | 
>>>> communications@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:communications@xxxxxxxxx> | ICANN | 12025
>>>> Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email
>>>> Marketing by
>>>>
>>>> Manage Your Subscription
>>>>
>>>
>>>