RE: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

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. 

That seems pretty uncontroversial to me, but Avri may still disagree

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:49 AM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Well we are back to the discussion of whether such a decision is a
> matter of policy or not.  Where does policy making end and
> implementation begin.  Personally I have always found this boundary
> fuzzy ad find that many implementation decisions are indeed policy
> making decisions.  In fact isn't the issue of this entire group such an
> instance - i.e we are discussing the policy implications of an
> implementation plan.
> 
> The Bylaws refer to 'public policy matters'.  I doubt we are in a
> position to define the decision on allowing or prohibiting a name as not
> being a 'public policy matter' that either the GAC or the ALAC may have
> an opinion on.
> 
> But perhaps I am wrong and the GAC ad ALAC do not consider such
> decisions public policy matters.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 15 Sep 2010, at 12:36, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> with the assumption that if the appellant is either the GAC or ALAC,
> the
> >> board would then discuss their decision with them as required in the
> >> bylaw currently for GAC should they be requested to do so by the AC.
> >>
> >
> > I do not agree with that. The GAC has input rights and a "right to get
> an explanation of why the Board diverged from its advice" with respect
> to POLICY MAKING, not implementations. Individual TLD decisions are
> implementations of a policy, not a policy.
> > So I neither GAC nor ALAC is entitled to some kind of an explanation
> if they forward an objection and it is not upheld. Moreover, please note
> the capacity burden this would place on the Board and staff if there are
> a lot of objections.
> >
> >
>