Hi Kathy,

To summarise some of the changes we are proposing to recommend in the NCSG response to the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP):

1. That the voting threshold required to initiate, both a GGP and EPDP, be a supermajority of votes on the GNSO Council. This is to avoid these processes being used to trump a traditional PDP, which is more exhaustive in scoping the issue, and the opportunity for public comment along the process.

2. The GGP is meant to allow the GNSO to address question, when the answer will not require any new contractual obligations on contracted parties. Following Tuesday’s webinar, this was added:

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.

3. Regarding your question on the EPDP, I’m not sure if this answers your question or not, but please let me know. This has been included in the feedback on the applicability of EPDP as a process:

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.

My thinking is (I believe) precisely consistent with yours. Adding this as a criteria of applicability of EPDPs, in addition to the high voting threshold required to initiate one, should hopefully do the trick. Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

I apologize for this being cut out of the PDF page. Not my doing. I also attached a free text file with the complete text, but it’s a bit of a mess to go through. If the PC endorses the responses, I will submit the answers directly to surveymonkey on the Web page.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 16, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Amr,
In one of the excellent session that you and Avri gave to discuss this Initial Report, an issue came up that the scope of the Expedited Policy Development Process -- that allowing the GNSO to revisit any policy issue at any time (even if the initial proceeding just finished and was a very hard-fought compromise) might be too broad. That we should save Expedited Policy Development processes for areas *not considered* in the initial policy development process -- perhaps something now deemed critical for implementation, but not even conceived (or focused on) in the initial process.

The example we used was the "Brand Registries" seeking a change to the Applicant Guidebook and the "base registry agreement" set out in the Applicant Guidebook -- a new wrinkle and one that did need to be treated rapidly as Applications were in and processing rapidly...

The PDF seems to be cut off on this issue (I know you are cutting and pasting from an online form - which we appreciate!). Could you kindly address who you phrased the revised response from the SG on this issue?  It would be very difficult to continue to re-fight battles again and again... and it would be nice to have a substantive limitation (a clear bar or a very high bar to reconsideration of debated and "closed" policy matters) in addition to a procedural one (a vote of Council).

Best and tx!
Kathy



[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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/


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>