Hi,
This is a request from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group.
Comments have been extend to Jan 31.
In addition to this list, I have put this issue in a conversational
framework that Brendan has been suggesting we look at. So I have added
this issue to that tool and it can be found at:
https://ncsg.adhocracy.de/proposal/10481-Policy__Implementaton.html
(you probably need to do register with the tool)
While my preference is for a statement at the NCSG level, of course
answers from the 2 constituencies will be very useful to the P&IWG as well.
If sufficient material can be gathered between the mail list and the
tool, I will write up a statement that can be reviewed for rough
consensus in NCSG Policy Committee.
avri
member P&I WG
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request
for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:00:14 +0000
From: Gomes, Chuck <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
I would like to request assistance from all WG members who represent a
GNSO SG or Constituency to do what you can to encourage your respective
groups to responds to the request for input that J. Scott and I
requested several months ago. The attached letter was originally sent
to Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Council Chair and to other SO/AC leaders on
September 20, 2013 but the P&I WG has not yet received any response
except from the ALAC. We originally asked for responses by 31 October
2013 but later extended it to 31 January 2014.
Anything you can do to facilitate responses by the end of this month
would be greatly appreciated. I plan to do what I can in the case of
the RySG.
Chuck
*From:*Marika Konings [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
*Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 3:23 AM
*To:* Gomes, Chuck
*Cc:* gnso-policyimpl-chairs ([log in to unmask])
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the
GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group
Attached is the letter we sent to the other SO/ACs. These went out on 20
September. I double checked and the letter did go to Jonathan as the
GNSO Council Chair, but from the comments received from WG members, it
looks like it was not forwarded to the SG/C Chairs. If you agree, we can
send it to them today. Would 17 January be a reasonable deadline for input?
Thanks for confirming.
Best regards,
Marika
*From: *<Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
*Date: *Wednesday 4 December 2013 23:20
*To: *Marika Konings <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
*Cc: *"gnso-policyimpl-chairs ([log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)"
<[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
*Subject: *RE: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the
GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group
Thanks Marika. I missed that. I can’t seem to find the letter we sent
to the other SOs and ACs. Would you please send it to this list?
Chuck
*From:*Marika Konings [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:17 PM
*To:* Gomes, Chuck
*Cc:* gnso-policyimpl-chairs ([log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the
GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group
It says 'In this regard, we would ask for your organization to consider
the following questions which are set out in the WG’s Charter and
provide us with any input the GAC may have on any or all of these issues
by 30 November'. But to fair, in the letter to the ALAC we said 31
October ;-)
Marika
On 4 dec. 2013, at 23:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Here’s the letter to the GAC that was sent on 18 Oct. It doesn’t
look like we gave a requested reply date.
Chuck
*From:*[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Glen
de Saint Géry
*Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 1:09 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
*Cc:* Olof Nordling; gnso-policyimpl-chairs
([log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
([log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
*Subject:* [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Request for input from the GNSO
Policy & Implementation Working Group
Dear Heather:
We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation
Working Group. This Working Group (P&I WG) has been tasked with
providing the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on the
following issues:
-A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy
implementation related discussions, taking into account existing
GNSO procedures;
-A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of
“Policy Guidance,” including criteria for when it would be
appropriate to use such a process (for a process developing
something other than “Consensus Policy”) instead of the GNSO Policy
Development Process;
-A framework for implementation related discussions associated with
GNSO Policy recommendations;
-Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed
by a policy process and when it should be considered
implementation; and
-Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as
defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
From the onset of this process, the WG would like to gain input
from the GAC to support us in our efforts. In this regard, we would
ask for your organization to consider the following questions which
are set out in the WG’s Charter and provide us with any input the
GAC may have on any or all of these issues by 30 November.
1. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec.
2) directly provide with regard to policy development work and
policy implementation efforts?
2. What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate
indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?
3. “Questions for Discussion” contained in the Policy and
Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff. (See,
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm).
4. What lessons can be learned from past experience?
1. What are the consequences of action being considered
“policy” or
“implementation”?
2. Does it matter if something is “policy” or “implementation”?
If so, why?
3. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council
make recommendations or state positions to the Board on
matters of policy and implementation as a representative of
the GNSO as a whole?
4. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived
labeling (i.e., I will call this “policy” because I want
certain consequences or “handling instructions” to be
attached to it?)
5. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of “policy”
and “implementation” matter less, if at all?
5. What options are available for policy (“Consensus Policy” or
other) and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for
determining which should be used?
1. Are “policy” and “implementation” on a spectrum rather than
binary?
2. What are the variations of policy and what consequences
should attach to each variation?
3. What happens if you change those consequences?
6. Who determines the choice of whether something is “policy” or
“implementation”?
1. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths
lead to different variations?
2. How is the “policy” and “implementation” issue reviewed and
approved?
3. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?
7. What is the process by which this identification, analysis,
review and approval work is done?
1. How are “policy and implementation” issues first identified
(before, during and after implementation)?
2. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
3. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once
policy moves to implementation, how should the community be
involved in a way that is meaningful and effective?
4. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation
process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder
process that already occurred?
Alternatively or in support of your efforts to respond to the above,
if you would like to set up a teleconference in advance of the ICANN
meeting in Buenos Aires or an in-person meeting in Buenos Aires, the
Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.
We are very happy to report that two GAC participants have joined
the WG in their personal capacities: Olga Cavalli and Carlos Raul
Guttierez. To the extent that these WG members might be willing to
do so, we are open to the possibility of exploring whether it might
be possible for either or both of them to serve in an informal and
unofficial liaison capacity to facilitate communications between the
GAC and WG. If you would like to discuss this further, please let
us know.
We would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full
community and we welcome any additional members from the GAC that my
wish to participate in this work in their personal capacities. To
review the current membership, please see
https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag.
Finally, we want to acknowledge receipt of a suggestion from Suzanne
Radell that this WG might be an opportunity to experiment with a new
approach for GAC/GNSO collaboration. As chairs of the P&I WG, we
are very open to this idea and we have referred it to the GNSO
Council chair for further consideration.
Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please do not hesitate
to reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you
require any additional information.
Kind regards.
Chuck Gomes ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
J. Scott Evans ([log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
|
