Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask]> > Date: February 1, 2013 3:57:08 PM PST > To: liaison6c <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [liaison6c] Policy vs. Implementation: Public Comment > period open > > Policy vs. Implementation > > Comment/Reply Periods (*) > Important Information Links > Comment Open: > 31 January 2013 > Comment Close: > 21 February 2013 > Close Time (UTC): > 23:59 > Public Comment Announcement > Reply Open: > 22 February 2013 > To Submit Your Comments (Forum) > Reply Close: > 14 March 2013 > View Comments Submitted > Close Time (UTC): > 23:59 > Report of Public Comments > Brief Overview > Originating Organization: > ICANN Staff > Categories/Tags: > Policy Processes > Purpose (Brief): > In order to encourage feedback on the ICANN Staff Paper Policy vs. > Implementation – Draft Framework for Discussion [PDF, 195 KB], a > public comment forum has now been opened. > Current Status: > ICANN Staff has developed a paper outlining a draft framework for > community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria > that might facilitate dealing with questions relating to policy vs. > implementation in the future. > Next Steps: > The received comments are expected to feed into the session that is > being planned on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Beijing. > Staff Contact: > Marika Konings > Email: > [log in to unmask] > Detailed Information > Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose > Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation > related issues of the new gTLD program, there is 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 diverging opinions should be acted upon. In order to facilitate > these discussions, ICANN Staff has developed a draft framework for > community discussion that identifies a number of steps and criteria > that might facilitate dealing with similar questions in the future. > The paper [PDF, 195 KB] identifies a number of questions that the > community may want to consider further in this context, as well as > a couple of suggested improvements that could be considered in the > short term. While developing a bright-line rule as to what is > policy or implementation may not be possible, the hope is that by > developing clear processes and identifying clear roles and > responsibilities for the different stakeholders, it will become > easier to deal with these issues going forward and allow for broad > participation and involvement. In order to facilitate discussions > on this topic, a session is being scheduled at the ICANN meeting in > Beijing. Input received as a result of this public comment forum is > intended to feed into those discussions, which are also intended to > identify next steps. > > Section II: Background > There are multiple kinds of "policy" within the ICANN world. There > are formal policies developed through the policy development > processes as set forth in the Bylaws. There are operational > policies generally not subject to a PDP or considered > implementation, such as the Conflicts of Interest Policy, but for > which public comment is sought and considered. Finally, there are > general practices that are sometimes referred to as "little p" > policies or more accurately "procedures", such as the 30-day public > comment requirement for Bylaw changes. Within this category again > there are a variety of considerations. There could be established > practices, for example, on topics that although within scope of a > policy development process (PDP) have not resulted in a formal > recommendation to the Board that could serve as authoritative > "Policy." In some of those instances, for example vertical > integration or registrar accreditation procedures, ICANN identified > a path forward and if a policy recommendation on these topics were > to later arise through a PDP, ICANN would then consider how that > policy might impact or require change to established practice(s) > (resulting in "Policy"). > > One area that is ripe for further discussion within the ICANN > community is identifying the proper process to follow when there > are changes to policy recommendations that have already been > adopted by the Board, or to the proposals related to the > implementation of approved policy recommendations. Questions have > been raised about when those issues need to be vetted using a new > PDP and when it would suffice to use public comment to vet a > proposed change for public comment and for the Board and/or staff > to act on that based on the comment received. Such questions arose, > for example, during the evolution of the applicant guidebook for > the New gTLD Program, and also during the negotiation of key > contracts such as the .com and .net registry agreements regarding > the impact of potential incorporation of a "thick" Whois registry > model. > > Another, associated issue is when resolution of a new issue should > be supported by a consensus of the ICANN community, and when an > issue arising from the implementation of a policy may be > effectuated by the ICANN Board or ICANN Staff upon taking a range > of advice even if there is no consensus within the ICANN community. > > In order to better deal with the issues outlined in this paper, > ICANN Staff has outlined a number of proposed principles to serve > as a basis for this discussion as well as developed a proposed > framework which can be found in the annex to the paper. > > Section III: Document and Resource Links > Policy versus Implementation – Draft Framework for Discussion [PDF, > 195 KB] > Section IV: Additional Information > N/A > (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not > guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, > reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period > lapses. > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > [log in to unmask] > http://gnso.icann.org > IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]