Hi everyone,

I received request for NCSG input for the ongoing work in the Policy &
Implementation Working group. if some of you may recall correctly , Avri
gave us a heads-up weeks ago sharing some documents. you will find attached
charts of new processes under discussion, aimed to improve the work of GNSO.
it will be helpful to get some explanation and briefing from the NCSg
members of that working group and getting a volunteer to collect comments
to draft a NCSG input.

Thanks,

Best Regard,

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 2014-08-28 0:33 GMT+09:00
Subject: Feedback Request: Policy & Implementation Working Group (PIWG)
To:







Dear Rafik,



One of the questions that the Policy & Implementation Working Group (PIWG)
was tasked to consider is: “Under what circumstances, if any, may 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?”  In
consideration of this question, the PIWG is currently developing possible
recommendations for new processes in addition to the existing Policy
Development Process (PDP) by which the GNSO Council can provide input on
behalf of the GNSO community on policy and related questions brought to its
attention by the ICANN Board, other ICANN Supporting Organizations and/or
Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) and by GNSO participants. As these proposed
mechanisms are likely to be of great interest to the GNSO community, the
PIWG would very much like to seek your group’s feedback on the attached
flow charts outlining these potential processes.  We have not yet developed
detailed descriptions of these processes so we are not looking for feedback
at that level (although that would be accepted) but rather, we would like
to know whether or not you think we are headed in a constructive direction
in considering new processes like these.



Attached are flow charts that show the two additional processes: a proposed
GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and a proposed GNSO Input Process (GIP). They
are intended to supplement the existing mechanisms by which the GNSO
Council performs its work and manages that of the GNSO community.  The
processes are intended to add to the flexibility and responsiveness of the
GNSO and the Council. They represent our attempt to balance the need for
such nimbleness with the need for codified processes that will allow the
GNSO and the Council to deal with requests other than on an ad-hoc basis.
The possibility of a “fast track” PDP is also included in some of the flow
charts to try to address situations where policies already adopted by the
ICANN Board may need clarification or updating.



The flow charts are organized as follows:

1.     An overview of the GNSO Process Options including the new processes

2.     An outline of the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) without a Fast Track
PDP option and with voting thresholds as follows: i) to initiate a GGP, the
same as required to initiate a PDP; ii) to approve GGP recommendations,
supermajority as currently defined for the GNSO Council

3.     An outline of the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) with a Fast Track PDP
option and with voting thresholds as follows: i) to initiate a GGP,
supermajority as currently defined for the GNSO Council; ii) to approve GGP
recommendations, supermajority as currently defined for the GNSO Council

4.     An outline of the GNSO Input Process (GIP).



Note that flowcharts 2, 3 & 4 contain boxes that are colored in orange.
These indicate that those are specific areas that the WG will further
review and discuss once a more detailed description of these processes is
available. If you already have any specific input you would like to provide
on these areas (or any other), you are more than welcome to do so, but
please note that there will of course be further opportunities to provide
input as further details are developed by the WG.



The PIWG will be grateful if your group could provide its feedback to us by
Friday 12 September 2014. At a minimum we would like to know whether you
think the PIWG is heading in the right direction with regard to its
consideration of recommending two new processes similar to the GGP and GIP
shown in the flowcharts.  In addition, feedback would also be welcome at
your option regarding the orange colored boxes in the flow charts.



We will be happy to address any questions that your members may have in the
meantime.  Your questions and your feedback may be provided via your WG
representative(s) or via email in response to this message.



Best regards,



J. Scott Evans & Chuck Gomes (Co-Chairs), Michael Graham & Olevie Kouami
(Co-Vice-Chairs)