Hi,

I’ve attached an updated version of the NCSG response to the public comment period for the Policy and Implementation WG initial report to this email. In it, I’ve tried to consolidate the excellent feedback provided from last week’s NCSG webinar.

There is some text that can’t be read on page 4 of the document, so I’m adding it here. You can only find it if you save the whole document as free text. This text is particularly important because it includes a somewhat contentious issue we discussed last Tuesday.

> Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) is provisional to the same 
> change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the process as the GGP, and for the same reasons. Additionally, Annex E #4 of the report states that "At the request of any Council member duly and timely submitted and seconded as a motion, the Council may initiate the EPDP by a Supermajority vote of the Council in favor of initiating the EPDP. A motion which fails to carry a Supermajority vote of Council may be resubmitted at the same Council meeting as a motion to 
> initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote confirming the initiation of an EPDP 
> fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required to initiate a GGP be a supermajority 
> vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above.
> 
> Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used to reopen a policy that had 
> previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a discussion on a previously rejected policy, an issue scoping phase of a PDP (not included in the EPDP) should be included to scope the policy issue in order to determine wether or not there are new circumstances that have been recognized that require that a policy issue be revisited and reversed. This additional criteria for applicability does not conflict with those already being recommended in Annex E of the report.


For clarification, we had agreed to include input addressing this issue in the “Principles” section of the report. I was, at the time, in agreement on this. However, on review of the report, I found this difficult to do considering that the principles are very general in their nature, and do not specifically address any of the new processes being suggested by the WG. I hope the language I added addresses this in a satisfactory manner, but please let me know if there are any thoughts to the contrary.

Thanks.

Amr


On Mar 6, 2015, at 1:03 PM, Maryam Bakoshi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> Please find below participation details for the NCSG Webinar on the Initial Report of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group call on Tuesday 10th March at 19:00 UTC.
> 
> Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
> 
> Time Zones: http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/?qm=1&lid=100,8,5&h=100&date=2015-3-10&sln=19-21
> 
> Public Comment link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en
> 
> Draft Response: Attached
> 
> Passcodes/Pin codes:
> Participant passcode: NCSG PC
> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.
> 
> 
> Dial in numbers:
> Country
> Toll Numbers
> Freephone/
> Toll Free Number
> ARGENTINA
> 
> 
> 
> 0800-777-0519
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> ADELAIDE:
> 
> 61-8-8121-4842
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> BRISBANE:
> 
> 61-7-3102-0944
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> CANBERRA:
> 
> 61-2-6100-1944
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> MELBOURNE:
> 
> 61-3-9010-7713
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> PERTH:
> 
> 61-8-9467-5223
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> SYDNEY:
> 
> 61-2-8205-8129
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRIA
> 
> 
> 43-1-92-81-113
> 
> 0800-005-259
> 
> BELGIUM
> 
> 
> 32-2-400-9861
> 
> 0800-3-8795
> 
> BRAZIL
> 
> 
> 55-11-3958-0779
> 
> 0800-7610651
> 
> CHILE
> 
> 
> 
> 1230-020-2863
> 
> CHINA
> 
> CHINA A:
> 
> 86-400-810-4789
> 
> 10800-712-1670
> 
> CHINA
> 
> CHINA B:
> 
> 86-400-810-4789
> 
> 10800-120-1670
> 
> COLOMBIA
> 
> 
> 
> 01800-9-156474
> 
> CROATIA
> 
> 
> 
> 080-08-06-309
> 
> CZECH REPUBLIC
> 
> 
> 420-2-25-98-56-64
> 
> 800-700-177
> 
> DENMARK
> 
> 
> 45-7014-0284
> 
> 8088-8324
> 
> ESTONIA
> 
> 
> 
> 800-011-1093
> 
> FINLAND
> 
> 
> 358-9-5424-7162
> 
> 0-800-9-14610
> 
> FRANCE
> 
> LYON:
> 
> 33-4-26-69-12-85
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE
> 
> MARSEILLE:
> 
> 33-4-86-06-00-85
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE
> 
> PARIS:
> 
> 33-1-70-70-60-72
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> GERMANY
> 
> 
> 49-69-2222-20362
> 
> 0800-664-4247
> 
> GREECE
> 
> 
> 30-80-1-100-0687
> 
> 00800-12-7312
> 
> HONG KONG
> 
> 
> 852-3001-3863
> 
> 800-962-856
> 
> HUNGARY
> 
> 
> 36-1-700-8856
> 
> 06-800-12755
> 
> INDIA
> 
> BANGALORE:
> 
> 91-80-61275204
> 
> INDIA
> 
> MUMBAI:
> 
> 91-22-61501629
> 
> INDIA
> 
> INDIA A:
> 
> 
> 000-800-852-1268
> 
> INDIA
> 
> INDIA B:
> 
> 
> 000-800-001-6305
> 
> INDIA
> 
> INDIA C:
> 
> 
> 1800-300-00491
> 
> INDONESIA
> 
> 
> 
> 001-803-011-3982
> 
> IRELAND
> 
> 
> 353-1-246-7646
> 
> 1800-992-368
> 
> ISRAEL
> 
> 
> 
> 1-80-9216162
> 
> ITALY
> 
> MILAN:
> 
> 39-02-3600-6007
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> ITALY
> 
> ROME:
> 
> 39-06-8751-6018
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> ITALY
> 
> TORINO:
> 
> 39-011-510-0118
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> JAPAN
> 
> OSAKA:
> 
> 81-6-7878-2631
> 
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> JAPAN
> 
> TOKYO:
> 
> 81-3-6868-2631
> 
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> LATVIA
> 
> 
> 
> 8000-3185
> 
> LUXEMBOURG
> 
> 
> 352-27-000-1364
> 
> 8002-9246
> 
> MALAYSIA
> 
> 
> 
> 1-800-81-3065
> 
> MEXICO
> 
> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
> 
> 52-33-3208-7310
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> MEXICO
> 
> MEXICO CITY:
> 
> 52-55-5062-9110
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> MEXICO
> 
> MONTERREY:
> 
> 52-81-2482-0610
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> NETHERLANDS
> 
> 
> 31-20-718-8588
> 
> 0800-023-4378
> 
> NEW ZEALAND
> 
> 
> 64-9-970-4771
> 
> 0800-447-722
> 
> NORWAY
> 
> 
> 47-21-590-062
> 
> 800-15157
> 
> PANAMA
> 
> 
> 
> 011-001-800-5072065
> 
> PERU
> 
> 
> 
> 0800-53713
> 
> PHILIPPINES
> 
> 
> 63-2-858-3716
> 
> 1800-111-42453
> 
> POLAND
> 
> 
> 
> 00-800-1212572
> 
> PORTUGAL
> 
> 
> 
> 8008-14052
> 
> ROMANIA
> 
> 
> 40-31-630-01-79
> 
> RUSSIA
> 
> 
> 
> 8-10-8002-0144011
> 
> SAUDI ARABIA
> 
> 
> 
> 800-8-110087
> 
> SINGAPORE
> 
> 
> 65-6883-9230
> 
> 800-120-4663
> 
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
> 
> 
> 421-2-322-422-25
> 
> 0800-002066
> 
> SOUTH AFRICA
> 
> 
> 
> 080-09-80414
> 
> SOUTH KOREA
> 
> 
> 82-2-6744-1083
> 
> 00798-14800-7352
> 
> SPAIN
> 
> 
> 34-91-414-25-33
> 
> 800-300-053
> 
> SWEDEN
> 
> 
> 46-8-566-19-348
> 
> 0200-884-622
> 
> SWITZERLAND
> 
> 
> 41-44-580-6398
> 
> 0800-120-032
> 
> TAIWAN
> 
> 
> 886-2-2795-7379
> 
> 00801-137-797
> 
> THAILAND
> 
> 
> 
> 001-800-1206-66056
> 
> TURKEY
> 
> 
> 
> 00-800-151-0516
> 
> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
> 
> 
> 
> 8000-35702370
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> BIRMINGHAM:
> 
> 44-121-210-9025
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> GLASGOW:
> 
> 44-141-202-3225
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> LEEDS:
> 
> 44-113-301-2125
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> LONDON:
> 
> 44-20-7108-6370
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> MANCHESTER:
> 
> 44-161-601-1425
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> URUGUAY
> 
> 
> 
> 000-413-598-3421
> 
> USA
> 
> 
> 1-517-345-9004
> 
> 866-692-5726
> 
> VENEZUELA
> 
> 
> 
> 0800-1-00-3702
> 
> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.
> 
> <Mail Attachment.ics><NCSG response to PI WG initial report survey questions - Draft.pdf>




Page 1 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new generic TopLevel 
Doman (gTLD) program, there 
has been an increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, 
at what time and how issues which are the subject of diverging opinions during the implementation process should be acted upon. Following 
several discussions, including the publication of a staff discussion paper and a community session during the ICANN meeting in Beijing in 
April 2013, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council decided in July 2013 to form a Working Group (WG) which was 
tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on a number of questions that specifically relate to policy and 
implementation in a GNSO context. The WG has now published its Initial Recommendations Report for community input. To facilitate public 
comments, the WG has developed this survey to facilitate input and feedback on the Initial Recommendations Report and its 
recommendations. Please review the Initial Recommendations Report before completing the survey below (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/policyimplementation/
piwginitialrecommendations19jan15en.
pdf). 
Note that each survey item contains a box for written comments. Also note that public comments may be submitted in a more traditional 
manner using a template that is linked on the public comment page. The WG requests that commenters complete the survey first, entering in 
the survey as applicable. If additional comments are desired, please use the template to submit those. 
1. What is your name? 
2. What is your affiliation (e.g. name of ICANN Supporting Organization, Advisory 
Committee, Stakeholder Group, Constituency, individual) 
3. Are you completing this survey on behalf of your group? If yes, please specify which 
group if different from your listed affiliation. 
*
* 
Affiliation 
Please select from the 
dropdown 
menu 
6 
Other (please specify) 
Yes 
nmlkj 
No 
nmlkj 
If yes, please specify which group if different from your listed affiliation. 
Amr Elsadr 
NCSG

Page 2 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
4. The Working Group developed a number of working definitions (see section 3 of the 
Initial Report). Please rate whether you consider these definitions useful in the context 
of this report. 
Working Definitions & Principles 
Not helpful 
nmlkj 
Somewhat helpful 
nmlkj 
Helpful 
nmlkj 
Very helpful 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
If you have responsed not helpful or somewhat helpful, please provide any suggestions you have to improve these definitions here. 
5
6

Page 3 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
5. The Working Group has developed a set of proposed Policy & Implementation 
Principles (see section 4 of the Initial Report) that it recommends are adopted by the 
GNSO Council and ICANN Board to guide any future policy and implementation related 
work. Do you support the adoption of these proposed principles by the GNSO Council 
and the ICANN Board? 
Yes 
nmlkj 
Yes, but taking into account the comments / proposed edits outlined in the comment box. 
nmlkj 
No 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
Please provide your comments / proposed edits. 
5
6

Page 4 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
6. As outlined in section 5 of the Initial Report, the WG recommends the creation of 
three new GNSO processes, namely a GNSO Input Process, a GNSO Guidance Process 
and a GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process. Please rate each of these 
processes. 
In relation to these three proposed processes (GNSO Input Process GIP, 
GNSO Guidance Process GGP, 
GNSO Expedited Policy 
Development Process EPDP), 
the WG identified a number of specific questions which it would like to obtain input on. 
Proposed Additional New GNSO Processes 
Do not support adoption 
(please outline reasons 
below) 
Would support adoption if 
changes as outlined below 
are made 
Support adoption No opinion 
GNSO Input Process nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 
GNSO Guidance Process nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 
GNSO Expedited Policy 
Development Process 
nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 
Please provide further details if you have responsed 'do not support adoption' or 'would support adoption if changes are made' 
5
6 
Support of the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) is provisional to the GNSO Council voting threshold 
to initiate such a process being a supermajority vote in favor of initiation of a GGP. This is important 
in order to keep the voting threshold low enough for a minority of GNSO Council members to reject 
initiation of a GGP in favor of a more exhaustive traditional Policy Development Process, should 
such a decision be deemed to be necessary. 
Furthermore, A GGP is not intended to be used when the expected outcome may result in new 
contractual obligations to contracted parties. Similarly, the NCSG feels it is important that the 
prerequisites for not using a GGP explicitly include that there will also be no new obligations 
(contractual or otherwise) on registrants. Examples of obligations on registrants that may not require 
changes made to contracts between ICANN and registries or registrars include changes to the 
UDRP or URS. Such changes should be made using another process, preferably a traditional PDP. 
Support of the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) is provisional to the same 
change in voting threshold being required for initiation of the process as the GGP, and for the same 
reasons. Additionally, Annex E #4 of the report states that "At the request of any Council member 
duly and timely submitted and seconded as a motion, the Council may initiate the EPDP by a 
Supermajority vote of the Council in favor of initiating the EPDP. A motion which fails to carry a 
Supermajority vote of Council may be resubmitted at the same Council meeting as a motion to 
initiate a GNSO Guidance Process". In the event that a vote confirming the initiation of an EPDP 
fails, it would be necessary for the voting threshold required to initiate a GGP be a supermajority 
vote in favor, also for the reasons mentioned above. 
Furthermore, the NCSG believes that an EPDP should not be used to reopen a policy that had 
previously been deliberated upon, and rejected. To reconvene a discussion on a previously rejected 
policy, an issue scoping phase of a PDP (not included in the EPDP) should be included to scope the 
policy issue in order to determine wether or not there are new circumstances that have been 
recognized that require that a policy issue be revisited and reversed. This additional criteria for 
applicability does not conflict with those already being recommended in Annex E of the report.

Page 5 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
7. In the Initial Report the WG recommends that Advisory Committees and the Board 
could request a GGP but only the GNSO Council would have the authority to actually 
initiate a GGP. Should an Advisory Committee or the Board have the ability to initiate a 
GGP (similar to their ability to do so for a policy development process i.
e. the GNSO 
Council would be required to commence a GGP)? 
Yes 
nmlkj 
Yes, but only if the conditions listed below are met 
nmlkj 
No 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
Please provide further details on the conditions that should be met 
5
6 
The NCSG believes that the ICANN Board and Advisory Committees should be free to make 
requests to the GNSO in any way and format they see fit regarding questions on gTLD policies, 
including what processes they believe appropriate for use in response to their requests. These 
would ideally be supported by their reasons in requesting a specific process be used. However, as 
suggested in the initial report's recommendations, the GNSO Council should maintain the authority 
to make the final choice of complying with or rejecting the suggested process being used in favor of 
another process the Council believes is more appropriate.

Page 6 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
8. For an EPDP, it is currently proposed that only the GNSO Council can initiate this 
process, although an AC/Board could request the GNSO Council to consider doing so. 
Do you agree? 
9. The proposed voting threshold for initiating a GGP is the same as for initiating a PDP 
(an affirmative vote of more than onethird 
(1/3) of each House or more than twothirds 
(2/3) of one House). Do you agree? 
Yes 
nmlkj 
Yes, but only if the conditions below are met. 
nmlkj 
No 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
Please provide further details on the conditions to be met 
5
6 
Yes 
nmlkj 
Yes if the conditions outlined below are met 
nmlkj 
No 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
Please provide further details on the conditions to be met 
5
6 
The same reasons provided in the answer to question 7 apply here. 
The voting threshold for initiating a GGP should be higher than that required to initiate a PDP, in 
order to enable a minority of councillors to require a more traditional and exhaustive PDP be 
launched to answer a question if deemed appropriate. The NCSG suggests a supermajority vote of 
the whole council be required to initiate a GGP. 
In creating new processes that will allow the GNSO and GNSO Council the flexibility to manage 
their work more efficiently, the new processes being suggested should not be created as procedural 
barriers prohibiting initiation of PDPs when/if necessary, but rather additional tools at the disposal of 
the GNSO to assist in carrying out its duties only when the circumstances are appropriate.

Page 7 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
10. The proposed voting threshold for approving a GGP is a supermajority vote of the 
GNSO Council. Do you agree? 
11. For a PDP vote, if these are not adopted by the GNSO Council by a supermajority 
vote as defined for the GNSO Council, there is a lower threshold for the Board to 
overturn these Ð should the same apply for the GGP or if there is no supermajority 
support, the GGP Final Report fails? 
Yes 
nmlkj 
Yes if the conditions outlined below are met 
nmlkj 
No 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
Please provide further details on the conditions to be met 
5
6 
Yes, the same should apply 
nmlkj 
Yes if the conditions outlined below are met 
nmlkj 
No, if there is no supermajority support, the GGP Final Report fails 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
Please provide further details on the conditions to be met 
5
6 
A possible reason why a supermajority of the GNSO Council might not support the 
recommendations made using a GGP may be that new contractual obligations for contracted parties 
may indeed be necessary, or that new obligations are identified for registrants as a result of the 
GGP recommendations. This would require another process be used. The ICANN board should 
be required to respect the GNSO Council's decision in such an event.

Page 8 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
12. Termination of a GGP Ð it is proposed that a simple majority Council vote as defined 
in GNSO procedures is sufficient to terminate a GGP prior to delivery of the Final Report 
(compared to a supermajority vote that applies in the case of the PDP). Do you agree? 
Yes 
nmlkj 
Yes if the conditions outlined below are met 
nmlkj 
No 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
Please provide further details on the conditions to be met 
5
6

Page 9 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
13. The Working Group recommends that the PDP Manual be modified to require the 
creation of an Implementation Review Team following the adoption of PDP 
recommendations by the ICANN Board, but allow the GNSO Council the flexibility to not 
create an IRT in exceptional circumstances (e.g. if another IRT is already in place that 
could deal with the PDP recommendations). Do you agree? 
Implementation Related Recommendations 
Yes 
nmlkj 
Yes, if the conditions outlined below are met. 
nmlkj 
No 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
Please provide further details on the conditions to be met 
5
6 
A decision to not create an IRT should be limited to the GNSO Council, and not the ICANN Board. 
In consideration of not creating a new IRT, but instead adding to the implementation review work to 
an existing IRT, the GNSO Council should be required to consider the composition of the existing 
IRT, and wether its membership includes all those required for the new policy implementation 
process. This should also take into consideration stakeholder group/constituency representation. 
Amr Elsadr

Page 10 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
14. The WG recommends that the principles as outlined in Annex H of the Initial Report 
are followed as part of the creation as well as operation of IRTs. Do you support the 
adoption of these proposed principles? 
Yes 
nmlkj 
Yes, but taking into account the comments / proposed edits outlined in the comment box. 
nmlkj 
No 
nmlkj 
No opinion 
nmlkj 
Please provide your comments / proposed edits. 
5
6 
With respect to Annex H, Section V(E), in the event that a disagreement between an IRT member 
and GDD staff prove to be irreconcilable (even after mediation is performed by the Council liaison), 
the NCSG does not believe that an assessment of a level of consensus among the IRT members is 
necessary for the Council liaison to raise the issue to the GNSO Council for consideration. 
A reference for this would be the appeals process in section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group 
Guidelines, in which no such consensus call is required either.

Page 11 
GNSO Policy & Implementation Initial Report 
15. If you have any other comments, proposed edits or questions you would like to put 
forward to the WG in relation to the Initial Report, please use this comment box to 
provide that information. 
Other Comments 
5
6 
Annex E, section 4 (on page 69 of the initial report) refers to the ICANN bylaws in Article X, Section 
3, paragraphs 9(d) to (f) as a reference for the voting threshold required by the GNSO council for an 
affirmative vote approving EPDP recommendations. These sections of the bylaws are relevant for 
approving PDP charters, not recommendations. The NCSG believes Article X, Section 3, 
paragraphs 9(h) to (l) would be more appropriate in this context.