Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)
Thanks, Jeff. As you may recall, we organised a session in Toronto to discuss the issue of community input and advice, and are taken the input received as a result of that session as well as the public comment forum into account. As we are already quite far along in our thinking (you may recall that a draft flow chart was shared as part of the TMCH), we would like to be able to at least 'finalise' that work and share it with you. Of course, this would only be one piece of input, but may help in moving the discussion forward instead of starting from scratch. With best regards, Marika From: <Neuman>, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday 29 November 2012 08:37 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) Thanks Marika and we appreciate the effort. Perhaps rather than coming out with a document from ³staff², 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 community¹s thoughts). Then staff traditionally is in a position to ³defend² 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-2 4sep12-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> Date: Thursday 29 November 2012 06:55 To: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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 ³policy² vs. ³implementation.² 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 ³implementation.² Those that oppose it, call it ³policy.² 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 ³years² 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 ³implementation² 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 ³implementation² or ³policy². 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 ³implementation.² Those that opposed the recommendations called it ³policy.² 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 ³straw-man²: 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 ³implementation². 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 ³policy² and what is ³implementation.² 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] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 5:00 AM To: 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 Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden; Maria Häll; 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 Attachment:
smime.p7s
|