Yes, long overdue.

Bill

On Nov 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Other than the fact that he needs to include ALAC and ccNSO in the Cross community mix, I think this is a great idea.
> 
> I did a bit of research on this yesterday since I was trying to answer the question. In the context of writing my application for the ATRT, which remains undone, I noticed that included in the last ATRT report was a requirement that the distinction between policy and administrative action be defined.  Administrative action may be somewhat different than implementation, but i tend to think of implementation as a form of administrative action.  In replying to this ATRT requirement, what they did was describe the process for SO policy making, and the policy for Admin action making and give a few examples.  In other words the definition, in so far as I understand it, is that if an SO does it, it is policy and if the Board or Staff does it, it is Administrative action. And that it is a Board or Staff decision as to whether community input is required.  While I am sure I can be shown that I am simplifying somewhat, this is what I understood from the response they gave.  I personally find this lacking.
> 
> So yes, I think doing this is a great idea.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 30 Nov 2012, at 06:59, joy wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Hi all - sharing this message with you.
>> This letter has sparked a debate among GNSO Councillors about whether
>> or not there should be some work on defining "policy" vs
>> "implementation" and/or some GNSO principles. the discussion began
>> with Jeff Neumann's suggestion:
>> "I believe we all need to take a step back from the issues immediately
>> and decide once and for all an agreed upon bottom-up multi-stakeholder
>> definition of what is ?policy? and what is ?implementation.?  Or at
>> the very least a framework for making that assessment when issues
>> arise.  I would advocate for a cross community group made up of
>> members from ICANN staff, the GNSO, the GAC and others to come
>> together to figure this issue out, so that we get out of this rut we
>> are now in.  At the same time, we need to fix the image of the GNSO
>> policy processes so that they are no longer feared, but embraced.
>> They need to not be used as vehicles for delay, but rather utilized
>> for the common good."
>> 
>> It would help us as Councillors to have your views on this idea.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Joy
>> 
>> 
>> - -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	[council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
>> Date: 	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:59:54 -0000
>> From: 	Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: 	<[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> FYI.  Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my
>> time.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *From:*GAC Secretariat [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:* 28 November 2012 21:38
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Cc:* Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll;
>> [log in to unmask]; Choon Sai LIM (IDA)
>> *Subject:* Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent on behalf of Heather Dryden, GAC Chair
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Jonathan,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Attached please find a letter from the GAC regarding IOC and Red
>> Cross/Red Crescent protections.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jeannie Ellers
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Jeannie Ellers
>> Manager, GAC Coordination
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>> 1101 New York Avenue NW, Suite 930
>> 
>> Washington, DC 20005
>> Ph. +1 202 570 7135
>> M. +1 310 302 7552
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>> 
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQuCEaAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqyFUH+QEupaWuP0Y6Vb7NV/vd1+UI
>> X/qkrHqc42p8lYSa057tz0RimfwJrP848bid5VuOzbSrnJLNvPrCv405ENX3ldG7
>> Sfob89CG9kosEmFfNO7vxzUxGFFaZWQrWwLKYcmjIovvkPGONOBsXH6Sx4URvCf3
>> VaRD/YNzTVCeWnX4eWA916I/ppa7p3vXtkbhjPHVFlE4XxY/LKXTrffdDoFZh+mA
>> 4GO+8mfaWO+F80J5Nz5d/lkccf5r3ycZnbJeoV3pSyu2dDzTPWtv8zpShEvtfZRu
>> 1kEsW0qfiWt4dK0ZIGDrQp8SoAAMD954IoIuCu5K6wi7/zMVZF+MV8UNWiwzZi8=
>> =b5WL
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> <GAC_GNSOCouncil_20121128.pdf>