<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)
- To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:37:31 -0500
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-reply-to: <CCDCC91F.35E96%marika.konings@icann.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103B14A78@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <CCDCC91F.35E96%marika.konings@icann.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac3OTOeqonr3wkmhSiCLImUbPl6z4QAAi6gQ
- Thread-topic: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)
Thanks Marika and we appreciate the effort. Perhaps rather than coming out
with a document from "staff", you solicit a few volunteers from the community
to help staff in the preparation of this initial cut of the paper. For too
long the community is forced into a reactive mode once staff in isolation comes
up with its position (which may or may not be reflective of the community's
thoughts). Then staff traditionally is in a position to "defend" its position
and the community feels like it is too late to have an impact. I do not
believe that is the right way to proceed. If you get a small group together
that works on this initial paper with you, staff does not have to take on this
burden alone and the community can feel like it has made a contribution.
As part of your commitment to the multi-stakeholder bottom-up process, would
that be a possibility. As I said earlier, I would be happy to volunteer if
others would be comfortable with that. I am also happy to let others take my
place.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:17 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Jonathan Robinson; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC
regarding IOC/RC Protections)
Jeff and All,
Regarding the issue of policy vs. implementation, this is an issue that staff
is currently working on also in light of the paper that was published for
comment a short while ago on community input and advice (see
http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/input-advice-function-24sep12-en.pdf).
We hope to be able to share something with you in time for the next GNSO
Council meeting.
With best regards,
Marika
From: <Neuman>, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thursday 29 November 2012 06:55
To: Jonathan Robinson
<jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC
regarding IOC/RC Protections)
All,
We have a very serious problem here that needs immediate attention. I am not
referring to the merits of whether any of these organizations deserve
protection or not, or whether there should be additional safeguards for IP
owners in the new gTLD process or whether certain Whois Review team
recommendations could be put into place . Forget all of that. Forget the
merits and substance of these important issues.
The real issue is that new reliance on the terms "policy" vs. "implementation."
This is the issue that should receive top priority. To quote Alan Greenberg
(or at least paraphrase), when one group wants something in place without using
the policy process, they call it "implementation." Those that oppose it, call
it "policy." While that statement was made several times by Alan partly in
jest, that statement does have merit.
Lets look at the following 3 examples:
1. IOC/RC - As the letter sent around by Jonathan shows, the GAC is
thoroughly annoyed with the GNSO for starting a policy process on the
protection of IOC and Red Cross marks. They believe (although unstated), that
they have exclusive jurisdiction over these types of public policy issues and
do not want the GNSO to take "years" to work out whether these organizations
(which they believe are protected by law) should receive protections in the new
gTLD process. Without commenting on the merits of this argument, look at what
they have done. They have called the protections as nothing more than
"implementation" and therefore, the GNSO should explain itself as to why we
believe we have a right to start a policy process on it. After all,
implementation can just be enacted by the Board. There is no need for the GNSO
to get involved, in their view...nor do they want it.
2. Whois Review Team: The ICANN Board sought guidance from the entire
Internet community on whether the recommendations involved "implementation" or
"policy". Why? Because if it is implementation, there is no need to involve
the GNSO community and it can just be enacted. Those that supported the
recommendations wholeheartedly called them "implementation." Those that
opposed the recommendations called it "policy." I believe that many who called
it policy actually truly believe there are policy issues involved, but some
called it policy, to have it go through the long drawn out process we call a
PDP (with the hopes that it dies a slow death). Neither side of this debate is
blameless.
3. The now infamous New gTLD "straw-man": For the record, I was a part of
the group that discussed the straw man in Brussels and LA over the past few
weeks. I found those discussions very useful and appreciate the efforts being
made by the new ICANN CEO, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I
believe he truly will make a huge positive impact on ICANN for many years to
come. But, now the debate has turned into what is policy and what is
implementation. The IPC/BC and their representatives have called all of their
proposals "implementation". The NCSG, Registries, Registrars and Applicants
have called much of it policy. ICANN staff has now weighed in on their
thoughts and have classified certain items as implementation (thereby negating
the need for GNSO policy development), and other items as policy, thereby
requiring extensive involvement from the GNSO community - note I did NOT say
necessarily PDP).
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.
If we are able to do this, I believe many of the issues we are now having will
become easier to resolve (and we can focus on the merits). If not, I see these
issues getting much worse over the coming months/years. I believe the future
of the GNSO, and even the multi-stakeholder model in general hinge on the
definition of these 2 words.
I would be very happy to volunteer to serve on such a group.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections
All,
FYI. Please see the attached letter received from the GAC last night my time.
Jonathan
From: GAC Secretariat [mailto:gacsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28 November 2012 21:38
To: jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll;
alice@xxxxxxx<mailto:alice@xxxxxxx>; 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|