Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
- To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:58:33 -0400
On 15 September 2010 10:21, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Although I admit that in many cases it can be blurry, I think in this case
> the line between policy and implementation is pretty clear.
> Policy is general - it is meant to apply to any case that comes along.
> Application of the policy to a specific TLD is an implementation of the
> policy. So the proper role in policy making is to define rules, generalities
> that are supposed to be applicable to every case.
> In that sense, what we are doing now is policy making. We are defining
> rules and procedures. Once the policy is ratified, and verbally defined in
> the Final Applicant Guidebook and embodied in a set of procedures, we are in
> the world of implementation. A new TLD application comes along, and
> generates an objection, and then goes before the board. That is an
> implementation of the policy.
The obsession with maintaining existing DAG baggage such as the DSRP have
dragged us into the discussion of implementation. So we are unfortunately
- "The Board has final decision making authority but should consult
experts on the applicability of the criteria to the objection" -- *policy
- "The Board should engage a service provider to source the experts" -- *
- "The experts should be versed on issues of morality, censorship and
Ordre Public as applied to principles of international law" -- *policy*
- "The ICC is/isn't a suitable source of experts" -- *implementation
- "A super-majority vote by the Board is required to reject a string
based on government or community objections" -- *policy*
- "A service provider will be contracted to handle the administration of
incoming objections" -- *implementation*
My proposed wording for 4.1 was explicitly designed to remove implementation
from the policy.