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>
|
