<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: POLICY vs. IMPLEMENTAION (was [council] FW: Letter from the GAC regarding IOC/RC Protections)
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 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: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:39:52 -0500
- In-reply-to: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103B14A78@STNTEXCH01.cis. neustar.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <CCDBC434.2D4FC%gacsec@gac.icann.org> <003d01cdce18$4855ec60$d901c520$@ipracon.com> <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3E0103B14A78@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeff, well said.
For the record, your quote was if not verbatim,
pretty close. It was meant to be humorous, but
was intended to reflect what has been going on at times, in my opinion.
Alan
At 29/11/2012 09:55 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
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] 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>mailto:gacsec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 28 November 2012 21:38
To: <mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Steve Crocker; Fadi Chehade; Heather Dryden;
Maria Häll; <mailto:alice@xxxxxxx>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
>>>
|